From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SR slaves and .pgpass |
Date: | 2010-06-08 03:58:26 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTilE9PADqQNsUEfoT86kgq5RLx6zeId8vABgEoqt@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> But I think that we don't need to specify other than the wildcard
>> in the database field of .pgpass to use the replication-specific
>> password if the replication-specific user is supplied in .pgpass.
>> So the current code is enough for me. Am I missing something?
>
> You're looking at it from the perspective of somebody who knows
> exactly how the code works. What Andrew tried is exactly what
> 95% of other people would try. There doesn't seem to me to be
> any very good argument against making it work for them.
Hmm.. is it worth going back to my proposal?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-08 04:13:07 | Re: SR slaves and .pgpass |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-08 03:16:12 | Re: Functional dependencies and GROUP BY |