| From: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Upgrading rant. |
| Date: | 2003-01-05 14:47:48 |
| Message-ID: | 1041778067.15932.238.camel@mouse.copelandconsulting.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 22:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> You're missing the point: I don't want to lock out everyone but the
> super-user, I want to lock out everyone, period. Superusers are just
> as likely to screw up pg_upgrade as anyone else.
>
> BTW:
>
> $ postmaster -N 1 -c superuser_reserved_connections=1
> postmaster: superuser_reserved_connections must be less than max_connections.
> $
>
Well, first, let me say that the above just seems wrong. I can't think
of any valid reason why reserved shouldn't be allowed to equal max.
I also assumed that pg_update would be attempting to connect as the
superuser. Therefore, if you only allow a single connection from the
superuser and pg_upgrade is using it, that would seem fairly hard to
mess things up. On top of that, that's also the risk of someone being a
superuser. They will ALWAYS have the power to hose things. Period. As
such, I don't consider that to be a valid argument.
--
Greg Copeland <greg(at)copelandconsulting(dot)net>
Copeland Computer Consulting
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Copeland | 2003-01-05 14:53:25 | Re: [GENERAL] v7.3.1 Bundled and Released ... |
| Previous Message | Justin Clift | 2003-01-05 13:21:51 | Re: New Portal in Place, DNS switched ... |