On 31.12.2010 23:18, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On 31.12.2010 13:40, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> That thread makes no mention of how to specify which standbys are
>> synchronous and which are not.
> The simplest way would be to have separate database users for sync and
> async standbys ?
> That would allow any standby with right credentials act as a sync user,
> and those who are not eligible are not accepted even if they try to act
> as "a synchronity (?) provider".
Hmm, access control... We haven't yet discussed what privileges a
standby needs to become synchronous. Perhaps it needs to be a separate
privilege that can be granted, in addition to the replication privilege?
Robert's suggestion of using the roles instead of server names would
also solve that. With that you would list the roles in
synchronous_standbys, and no-one else could become a synchronous
standby. The downside is that if you want to have two standbys in the
mode that it's enough that either one acknowledges a commit, they would
have to use the same user account.
If we don't adopt Robert's suggestion, do we want to restrict what
standby name a user can claim, to stop one standby from spoofing another?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2011-01-01 20:24:01|
|Subject: Re: TODO item for pg_ctl and server detection|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2011-01-01 19:29:45|
|Subject: Re: Sync Rep Design|