Re: "repliation" as database name

At Mon, 28 Jan 2019 17:30:57 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote in <20190128(dot)173057(dot)41178374(dot)horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
> At Wed, 26 Dec 2018 12:59:32 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote in <32289(dot)1545847172(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> > Hm, I agree that the para doesn't read very well now, but I think this
> > could be improved further. How about something like
> >
> > # DATABASE can be "all", "sameuser", "samerole", "replication", a
> > # database name, or a comma-separated list thereof. The "replication"
> > # keyword matches replication connection requests (see example below).
> > # The "all" keyword matches all database names, but not replication
> > # connections.
>
> I'm afraid that just dropping "it must be enabled in a separate
> record" leads to confusion. How about adding a comment to
> replication connection examples.
>
> # Allow replication connections from localhost, by a user with the
> # replication privilege. Each definition must have its own record.

Mmm, this doesn't seem to saying what I wanted to say there.
This seems better.

# Allow replication connections from localhost, by a user with
# the replication privilege. They must have separate records from
# non-replication connections.

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center