| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 'replication' keyword on .pgpass (Streaming Replication) |
| Date: | 2010-01-06 16:51:30 |
| Message-ID: | 11447.1262796690@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The attached patch supports new keyword 'replication' on .pgpass file.
> This keyword is used to specify the password for the standby server to
> connect to the primary server.
This strikes me as a completely bad idea. We need get no farther than
the point that it assumes nobody can have a database named "replication"
(although I notice the patch also appears to assume that libpq knows
internally that the connection is for replication --- I thought we were
going to avoid libpq changes for SR?)
I don't see any real strong reason why a .pgpass entry for this purpose
couldn't depend on having "*" in the database field. But the later
comments that the password should be in some other configuration file
altogether are probably an even better idea.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-06 16:54:36 | Re: Type modifiers for DOMAIN |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-06 16:41:46 | Re: Status of plperl inter-sp calling |