Re: Upgrading rant.
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Upgrading rant. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 25271.1041825373@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Upgrading rant. (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: >> ... 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. Sigh. It's not about trust: it's about whether pg_upgrade can enforce or at least check its assumptions. I don't feel that it's a production-grade tool as long as it has to cross its fingers that the DBA made no mistakes. Also, if the previous example had no impact on you, try this one: $ postmaster -N 1 -c superuser_reserved_connections=0 & $ pg_dumpall pg_dump: [archiver (db)] connection to database "regression" failed: FATAL: Sorry, too many clients already pg_dumpall: pg_dump failed on regression, exiting $ -N 1 *will* cause problems. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: