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. +
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? |