From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump no longer honors --no-reconnect |
Date: | 2003-09-29 15:59:18 |
Message-ID: | 200309291559.h8TFxIG24649@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> > Yes, but didn't the old code prompt you for passwords, or silently work
> > if you had things set to 'trust', while our new code requires
> > super-user?
>
> If you have things set to "trust", you can be superuser, eh?
>
> A password approach might be workable using ~/.pgpass, but only in a
> scenario where (a) a non-superuser has everyone else's passwords in his
> ~/.pgpass, and (b) there are no superuser-owned objects in the dump.
> Neither of those assumptions hold up to scrutiny.
>
> In practice I think use-set-session-auth is vastly the superior
> technique, especially considering you can use --no-owner if you
> really don't want any SET SESSION AUTH commands in there.
Agreed. Sorry for the confusion I caused.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-09-29 16:17:19 | Re: more i18n/l10n issues |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-29 15:58:41 | Re: more i18n/l10n issues |