Re: ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn
Date: 2012-05-03 14:13:53
Message-ID: 22418.1336054433@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> Is there a particular reason we don't have an ALTER DATABASE switch
> that controls the datallowconn, or is it just something "missed out"?

It was never intended to be a user-accessible switch, just something to
protect template0.

I don't agree with Simon's proposal to hard-wire protection for
template0 instead; that's ugly, and sometimes you do need to be able to
turn it off. But that's something that should be done only with adult
supervision, so having a nice friendly ALTER DATABASE command for it
seems exactly the wrong thing.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-05-03 14:17:57 Re: "unexpected EOF" messages
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2012-05-03 14:01:27 Re: How hard would it be to support LIKE in return declaration of generic record function calls ?