On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Ross J. Reedstrom <reedstrm@rice.edu> wrote: > Perhaps the approach to restricting connections should not be a database > object lock, but rather an admin function that does the equivalent of > flipping datallowconn in pg_database?
To me, that seems like a better approach, although it's a little hard to see how we'd address Alvaro's desire to have it roll back automatically when the session disconnected. The disconnect might be caused by a FATAL error, for example.
I'm actually all in favor of doing more things via SQL rather than configuration files. The idea of some ALTER SYSTEM command seems very compelling to me. I just don't really like this particular implementation, which to me seems far too bound up in implementation details I'd rather not rely on.
Me too it it looks I'm a little bit late on this topic... Even if I got some interest in it. Personally I'd think such a lock system playing with file system is perhaps not the best way of doing as argued until now. It would make the DBA able to do superuser-like actions by modifying system files like pg_hba.conf. SQL approach looks to be better. At this point, perhaps you may be interested in such an approach: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Lock_database I wrote that after the cluster summit.
