| From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remote administration functionality |
| Date: | 2005-07-31 16:11:36 |
| Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E485078D@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: Sun 7/31/2005 2:58 PM
To: Dave Page
Cc: Tom Lane; Magnus Hagander; PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Remote administration functionality
> I was thinking of a global table that can be modified with
> INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE and is then dumped to a flat file, like we do with
> pg_shadow.
The problem is, pg_hba.conf might be editted via the OS unlike the text version of pg_shadow which is only editted via the server, which would make appropriate locking nigh-on impossible afaics.
Unless you're advocating only allowing pg_hba modifications via the server, in which case it must be started in default configuration before any mods can be made. That doesn't seem like a good idea to me :-(
Regards, Dave.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-07-31 17:02:33 | Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-07-31 16:02:51 | Re: Remote administration functionality |