| From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Mike Nolan <nolan(at)gw(dot)tssi(dot)com>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alex <alex(at)meerkatsoft(dot)com>, Frank Finner <postgresql(at)finner(dot)de>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PG vs MySQL |
| Date: | 2004-03-29 22:02:08 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0403291500170.22124-100000@css120.ihs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> "scott.marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
> > And while we're at it, maybe we should have a setting somewhere should
> > someone execute the famous "update pg_shadow set usesuper = false" that
> > someone did a while back to be able to force an account to be a superuser
> > account.
>
> We already have an adequate solution for that one: shut down the
> postmaster and run a standalone backend. You are always superuser in
> a standalone backend, so you can create a new superuser or just reverse
> the UPDATE command.
Ahhh. Good point. Any chance of having the same behaviour for pg_hba as
a table? I.e. you accidentally remove all connectability and you could
restore it to a pg_hba table? Does that even make sense? I'm not sure.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2004-03-29 22:19:25 | Re: Interval constant syntax, was Re: Interval & check |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-03-29 21:42:25 | Re: PG vs MySQL |