| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Connection limit and Superuser |
| Date: | 2006-07-31 13:52:17 |
| Message-ID: | 14141.1154353937@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>> Maybe someone should look into enabling slony to not run as a
>> superuser?
> That was my initial reaction to this suggestion. But then I realised
> that it might well make sense to have a separate connection-limited
> superuser for Slony purposes (or any other special purpose) alongside an
> unlimited superuser.
Actually, the real question in my mind is why Slony can't be trusted
to use the right number of connections to start with. If you don't
trust it that far, what are you doing letting it into your database as
superuser to start with?
As for "connection-limited superuser", if you can't do ALTER USER SET
on yourself then you aren't a superuser, so any such restriction is
illusory anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-31 14:09:57 | Re: Relation locking and relcache load (was Re: Going for "all green" buildfarm results) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-31 13:48:56 | Re: User-defined typle similar to char(length) varchar(length) |