On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.
It can be rather useful for others as well, though - since it works as
a defense against superusers doing the wrong thing..
> 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.
Yeah, I agree that from the perspective of template0, it definitely
looks that way.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-05-03 14:26:34|
|Subject: Re: ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn |
|Previous:||From: Merlin Moncure||Date: 2012-05-03 14:18:27|
|Subject: Re: How hard would it be to support LIKE in return
declaration of generic record function calls ?|