Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade
Date: 2003-12-16 18:25:29
Message-ID: 3FDF4E19.3050207@Yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> Then again, in the case of pg_upgrade, wouldn't just disabling access from
>> anywhere except localhost prevent others from getting in?
>
> Not if your normal operating mode includes connections from clients
> running locally. I really don't see any clean way to ensure that
> pg_upgrade (and subsidiary pg_dump runs invoked by it) are the only
> ones allowed to connect to the database, if we keep the normal
> postmaster running. But if we shut down the postmaster then it's
> trivial.

If you want to prevent "accidential" access, start postmaster on a
non-standard port.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-12-16 19:01:51 Re: 7.4 include file conflict
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2003-12-16 15:53:07 Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch