Re: Streaming replication as a separate permissions

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Streaming replication as a separate permissions
Date: 2010-12-24 04:46:30
Message-ID: 20101224044630.GD4933@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> I think I agree with Florian about the confusing-ness of the proposed
> semantics. Aren't you saying you want NOLOGIN mean "not allowed to
> log in for the purposes of issuing SQL commands, but allowed to log in
> for replication"? Uggh.

I like the general idea of a replication-only "role" or "login". Maybe
implementing that as a role w/ all the things that come along with it
being a role isn't right, but we don't want to have to reinvent all the
supported auth mechanisms (and please don't propose limiting the auth
options for the replication login!). Is there a way we can leverage the
auth mechanisms, etc, while forcing the 'replication role' to only be
able to do what a 'replication role' should do?

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jie Li 2010-12-24 05:27:31 Re: Why is sorting on two columns so slower thansortingon one column?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-12-24 04:35:26 pg_dump -X