On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.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/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
