Re: LOCK DATABASE

Hi all,

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Ross J. Reedstrom <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>
> wrote:
> > Perhaps the approach to restricting connections should not be a database
> > object lock, but rather an admin function that does the equivalent of
> > flipping datallowconn in pg_database?
>
> To me, that seems like a better approach, although it's a little hard
> to see how we'd address Alvaro's desire to have it roll back
> automatically when the session disconnected. The disconnect might be
> caused by a FATAL error, for example.
>
> I'm actually all in favor of doing more things via SQL rather than
> configuration files. The idea of some ALTER SYSTEM command seems very
> compelling to me. I just don't really like this particular
> implementation, which to me seems far too bound up in implementation
> details I'd rather not rely on.
>
Me too it it looks I'm a little bit late on this topic...
Even if I got some interest in it.
Personally I'd think such a lock system playing with file system is perhaps
not the best way of doing as argued until now. It would make the DBA able to
do superuser-like actions by modifying system files like pg_hba.conf.
SQL approach looks to be better.
At this point, perhaps you may be interested in such an approach:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Lock_database
I wrote that after the cluster summit.

Regards,
--
Michael Paquier
http://michael.otacoo.com