On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> "scott.marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
> > And while we're at it, maybe we should have a setting somewhere should
> > someone execute the famous "update pg_shadow set usesuper = false" that
> > someone did a while back to be able to force an account to be a superuser
> > account.
> We already have an adequate solution for that one: shut down the
> postmaster and run a standalone backend. You are always superuser in
> a standalone backend, so you can create a new superuser or just reverse
> the UPDATE command.
Ahhh. Good point. Any chance of having the same behaviour for pg_hba as
a table? I.e. you accidentally remove all connectability and you could
restore it to a pg_hba table? Does that even make sense? I'm not sure.
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Stephan Szabo||Date: 2004-03-29 22:19:25|
|Subject: Re: Interval constant syntax, was Re: Interval & check|
|Previous:||From: Jan Wieck||Date: 2004-03-29 21:42:25|
|Subject: Re: PG vs MySQL|