On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: > It's a valid concern, but I think the way to handle it if needed is to limit > the number of connections a user can open. Or perhaps another option would > be to change the permissions on the related functions (do we check ACLs for > internal functions?)
I'm not sure dump-and-restore would preserve any properties of anything in pg_catalog. Anyway, I think we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here. The questions I need answers to right now are: - What should we call dsm_unkeep_mapping, if not that? - Are there remaining complaints about patch #3? - How can I get somebody to review patch #4? - Does anyone have a tangible suggestion for how to reduce the code duplication in patch #6? The question of where pg_background should ultimately live does matter, but the answer will be "the -hackers mailing list archives" unless we can get agreement on the prerequisite patches. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
