Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Upgrading rant.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Copeland <greg(at)copelandconsulting(dot)net>,Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>,mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>,PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Upgrading rant.
Date: 2003-01-06 03:56:13
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> ...  On top of that, that's also the risk of someone being a
>> superuser.  They will ALWAYS have the power to hose things.  Period.  As
>> such, I don't consider that to be a valid argument.

> That was my feeling too.  If you can't trust the other admins, it is
> hard for us to trust them either.

Sigh.  It's not about trust: it's about whether pg_upgrade can enforce
or at least check its assumptions.  I don't feel that it's a
production-grade tool as long as it has to cross its fingers that the
DBA made no mistakes.

Also, if the previous example had no impact on you, try this one:

$ postmaster -N 1 -c superuser_reserved_connections=0 &
$ pg_dumpall 
pg_dump: [archiver (db)] connection to database "regression" failed: FATAL:  Sorry, too many clients already
pg_dumpall: pg_dump failed on regression, exiting

-N 1 *will* cause problems.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Lamar OwenDate: 2003-01-06 04:04:59
Subject: Re: Upgrading rant.
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-01-06 03:40:46
Subject: Re: AclId is defined in the wrong place

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group