Greg Copeland wrote: > 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.
That was my feeling too. If you can't trust the other admins, it is hard for us to trust them either. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
