From: | David Christensen <david(at)endpoint(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: LOCK DATABASE |
Date: | 2011-05-19 04:55:36 |
Message-ID: | CF8590A7-1BCC-450A-98A7-4042C9F957F8@endpoint.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On May 18, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Christopher Browne's message of mié may 18 18:33:14 -0400 2011:
>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> So we the lock will be released at end of the session or when the
>>> UNLOCK DATABASE command is invoked, right?
>>> A question: why will we beign so rude by killing other sessions
>>> instead of avoid new connections and wait until the current sessions
>>> disconnect?
>>
>> There were multiple alternatives suggested, which is probably useful to outline.
>>
>> 1. I suggested that this looks a lot like the controls of pg_hba.conf
>>
>> When our DBAs are doing major management of replication, they are
>> known to reconfigure pg_hba.conf to lock out all users save for the
>> one used by Slony.
>
> Yeah, I mentioned this but I think it actually sucks.
How would this differ from just UPDATE pg_database SET datallowconn = FALSE for the databases in question?
Regards,
David
--
David Christensen
End Point Corporation
david(at)endpoint(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-05-19 05:34:11 | Re: LOCK DATABASE |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-05-19 03:20:32 | Re: Adding an example for replication configuration to pg_hba.conf |