Re: [HACKERS] ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn

2012-05-03 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: >> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Magnus Hagander writes: Is there a particular reason we don't have an ALTER DATABASE switch that controls the datallowconn, or is it just something "missed

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn

2012-05-03 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander writes: > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Magnus Hagander 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

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn

2012-05-03 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander 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 > p

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn

2012-05-03 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander 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. I don't agree with Simon's proposal to

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn

2012-05-03 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> Is there a particular reason we don't have an ALTER DATABASE switch >> that controls the datallowconn, or is it just something "missed out"? > > I think it can be removed, or rather de

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn

2012-05-03 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Is there a particular reason we don't have an ALTER DATABASE switch > that controls the datallowconn, or is it just something "missed out"? I think it can be removed, or rather deprecated. datconnlimit can be set to 0 If we need to speci

[HACKERS] ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn

2012-05-03 Thread Magnus Hagander
Is there a particular reason we don't have an ALTER DATABASE switch that controls the datallowconn, or is it just something "missed out"? --  Magnus Hagander  Me: http://www.hagander.net/  Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)