Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users
Date: 2011-06-15 21:18:47
Message-ID: 201106152118.p5FLIl706881@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >> [ just recommend using a different port number during pg_upgrade ]
>
> > +1... That seems to have lots of nice properties.
>
> Yeah, that seems like an appropriate expenditure of effort. It's surely
> not bulletproof, since someone could intentionally connect to the actual
> port number, but getting to bulletproof is a lot more work than anyone
> seems to want to do right now. (And, as Bruce pointed out, no complete
> solution would be back-patchable anyway.)

OK, let me work on that.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2011-06-15 21:19:37 Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2011-06-15 20:59:09 Re: FK NOT VALID can't be deferrable?