From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: new --maintenance-db options |
Date: | 2012-06-25 18:58:25 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob0A9qvWSp38HNzC78b5wjXfH9mpee2Y=gL9WcOVfQdwQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun jun 25 11:57:36 -0400 2012:
>> Really, I think
>> pg_upgrade needs this option too, unless we're going to kill the
>> problem at its root by providing a reliable way to enumerate database
>> names without first knowing the name one that you can connect to.
>
> I think pg_upgrade could do this one task by using a standalone backend
> instead of a full-blown postmaster. It should be easy enough ...
Maybe, but it seems like baking even more hackery into a tool that's
already got too much hackery. It's also hard for pg_upgrade to know
things like - whether pg_hba.conf prohibits access to certain
users/databases/etc. or just requires the use of authentication
methods that happen to fail. From pg_upgrade's perspective, it would
be nice to have a flag that starts the server in some mode where
nobody but pg_upgrade can connect to it and all connections are
automatically allowed, but it's not exactly clear how to implement
"nobody but pg_upgrade can connect to it".
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-06-25 19:12:00 | Re: new --maintenance-db options |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-06-25 18:50:54 | Re: Catalog/Metadata consistency during changeset extraction from wal |