From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade |
Date: | 2003-12-16 18:25:29 |
Message-ID: | 3FDF4E19.3050207@Yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> Then again, in the case of pg_upgrade, wouldn't just disabling access from
>> anywhere except localhost prevent others from getting in?
>
> Not if your normal operating mode includes connections from clients
> running locally. I really don't see any clean way to ensure that
> pg_upgrade (and subsidiary pg_dump runs invoked by it) are the only
> ones allowed to connect to the database, if we keep the normal
> postmaster running. But if we shut down the postmaster then it's
> trivial.
If you want to prevent "accidential" access, start postmaster on a
non-standard port.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-12-16 19:01:51 | Re: 7.4 include file conflict |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2003-12-16 15:53:07 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch |