| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Streaming replication as a separate permissions |
| Date: | 2010-12-23 22:44:02 |
| Message-ID: | 29263.1293144242@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> On 12/23/10 2:33 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> A better alternative, imv, would be to just have a & d, and mention in
>> the release notes that users *should* create a dedicated replication
>> role which is *not* a superuser but *does* have the replication grant,
>> but if they don't want to change their existing configurations, they can
>> just grant the replication privilege to whatever role they're currently
>> using.
> Well, if we really want people to change their behavior then we need to
> make it easy for them:
> 1) have a replication permission
> 2) *by default* create a replication user with the replication
> permission when we initdb.
Yeah, I could see doing that ... the entry would be wasted if you're not
doing any replication, but one wasted catalog entry isn't much.
However, it'd be a real good idea for that role to be NOLOGIN if it's
there by default.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2010-12-23 22:45:19 | Re: Streaming replication as a separate permissions |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-12-23 22:38:11 | Re: Streaming replication as a separate permissions |