From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(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 15:58:22 |
Message-ID: | 24938.1064851102@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> It had been dicussed on and off for quite some time. This limitation
>> should only apply if you create dumps that contain objects owned by more
>> than one user. (Does it? I didn't check.)
> 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.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-29 15:58:41 | Re: more i18n/l10n issues |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-29 15:57:36 | Re: more i18n/l10n issues |