| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Subject: | Re: Allow workers to override datallowconn |
| Date: | 2018-02-22 19:22:31 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jLoSy6zXZAg4VhxOrEPnD4KawRuK=tzUBbNT7VLC8CF8w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 22 February 2018 at 18:24, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Are there any other caveats in doing that this actually makes it dangerous
>> to just allow bypassing it for extensions?
>
> Don't think so; we autovacuum such DBs anyway don't we?
Yeh, there is already precedent that should mean it is easy/default
for background workers to ignore datallowcon.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2018-02-22 19:24:03 | Re: Allow workers to override datallowconn |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-02-22 19:17:34 | Re: Allow workers to override datallowconn |