Re: Server-side base backup: why superuser, not pg_write_server_files?

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Server-side base backup: why superuser, not pg_write_server_files?
Date: 2022-02-03 17:26:09
Message-ID: cd073621-5b7f-c8cb-3b09-c2c58a0fc8f3@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 2/2/22 17:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> The Windows animals don't like this:
>> pg_basebackup: error: connection to server at "127.0.0.1", port 59539 failed: FATAL: SSPI authentication failed for user "backupuser"
>> Not sure whether we have a standard method to get around that.
> Ah, right, we do. Looks like adding something like
>
> auth_extra => [ '--create-role', 'backupuser' ]
>
> to the $node->init call would do it, or you could mess with
> invoking pg_regress --config-auth directly.
>
>

I've fixed this using the auth_extra method, which avoids a reload.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2022-02-03 17:29:32 Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2022-02-03 17:20:36 should vacuum's first heap pass be read-only?