Re: Upgrading rant.
Greg Copeland <greg@copelandconsulting.net>
From: Greg Copeland <greg@CopelandConsulting.Net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk>, Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>, mlw <pgsql@mohawksoft.com>, Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2003-01-05T14:47:48Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 22:37, Tom Lane wrote: > You're missing the point: I don't want to lock out everyone but the > super-user, I want to lock out everyone, period. Superusers are just > as likely to screw up pg_upgrade as anyone else. > > BTW: > > $ postmaster -N 1 -c superuser_reserved_connections=1 > postmaster: superuser_reserved_connections must be less than max_connections. > $ > Well, first, let me say that the above just seems wrong. I can't think of any valid reason why reserved shouldn't be allowed to equal max. I also assumed that pg_update would be attempting to connect as the superuser. Therefore, if you only allow a single connection from the superuser and pg_upgrade is using it, that would seem fairly hard to mess things up. On top of that, that's also the risk of someone being a superuser. They will ALWAYS have the power to hose things. Period. As such, I don't consider that to be a valid argument. -- Greg Copeland <greg@copelandconsulting.net> Copeland Computer Consulting