Hi all, On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Ross J. Reedstrom <reeds...@rice.edu> > wrote: > > Perhaps the approach to restricting connections should not be a database > > object lock, but rather an admin function that does the equivalent of > > flipping datallowconn in pg_database? > > To me, that seems like a better approach, although it's a little hard > to see how we'd address Alvaro's desire to have it roll back > automatically when the session disconnected. The disconnect might be > caused by a FATAL error, for example. > > I'm actually all in favor of doing more things via SQL rather than > configuration files. The idea of some ALTER SYSTEM command seems very > compelling to me. I just don't really like this particular > implementation, which to me seems far too bound up in implementation > details I'd rather not rely on. > Me too it it looks I'm a little bit late on this topic... Even if I got some interest in it. Personally I'd think such a lock system playing with file system is perhaps not the best way of doing as argued until now. It would make the DBA able to do superuser-like actions by modifying system files like pg_hba.conf. SQL approach looks to be better. At this point, perhaps you may be interested in such an approach: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Lock_database I wrote that after the cluster summit. Regards, -- Michael Paquier http://michael.otacoo.com
