From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn |
Date: | 2012-05-03 14:22:44 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEy8eY-gvF_n0H2H629RubxKVkhy9_UKcvJRz=Hcb50=Gw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> Is there a particular reason we don't have an ALTER DATABASE switch
>> that controls the datallowconn, or is it just something "missed out"?
>
> It was never intended to be a user-accessible switch, just something to
> protect template0.
It can be rather useful for others as well, though - since it works as
a defense against superusers doing the wrong thing..
> I don't agree with Simon's proposal to hard-wire protection for
> template0 instead; that's ugly, and sometimes you do need to be able to
> turn it off. But that's something that should be done only with adult
> supervision, so having a nice friendly ALTER DATABASE command for it
> seems exactly the wrong thing.
Yeah, I agree that from the perspective of template0, it definitely
looks that way.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-03 14:26:34 | Re: ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-05-03 14:18:27 | Re: How hard would it be to support LIKE in return declaration of generic record function calls ? |