From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: CVS corruption/mistagging? |
Date: | 2007-08-15 18:57:14 |
Message-ID: | 46C34C8A.9000505@hagander.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>
> --On Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:11:35 +0200 Peter Eisentraut
> <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> Am Mittwoch, 15. August 2007 04:20 schrieb Tom Lane:
>>> we should at least log such commands, and maybe disallow to anyone
>>> except Marc's "pgsql" account.
>> I don't think we should disallow it. Or otherwise we might one day be stuck
>> if we need to release while some specific person is on vacation.
>
> This isn't a big issue ... note that the 'restriction' is easy to remove ...
> you checkout CVSROOT, modify taginfo and comment out the ALL l ine and check
> that in ...
>
> What this will prevent is an 'accidental tagging' ... you would have to
> consciously remove the restriction .. but its something anyone could do ...
>
>> I never understood why tagging uses a special account anyway. It should be
>> done as the person doing the tagging.
>
> Agreed, I'm going to start doing it as myself from now on ... I'm not even 100%
> certain *why* I started doing it as pgsql in the first place ...
If you're doing that, we should probably just delete the pgsql userid
from the system? Or at least change it so it doesn't have 'dev'
permissions. That way you can't do it wrong in that direction ;-)
Seems reasonable?
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-08-15 18:57:53 | Re: XID wraparound and busy databases |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-08-15 18:54:00 | Re: Another idea for index-only scans |