| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: parallel restore |
| Date: | 2009-02-02 10:53:22 |
| Message-ID: | 4986D0A2.4000600@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Still, that's not a 100% solution because of the cases where we use
>> reconnections to change user IDs --- the required password would
>> (usually) vary. It might be sufficient to forbid that case with
>> parallel restore, though; I think it's mostly a legacy thing anyway.
>
> I didn't know such a thing even existed. What causes it to happen? I
> agree it should be forbidden.
It was the only way to switch users before we had SET SESSION
AUTHORIZATION and SET ROLE and such. But the pg_restore man page says
that -R/--no-reconnect is obsolete, so I'm not sure what the current
behavior really is.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-02-02 12:16:20 | Re: mingw check hung |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-02-02 10:45:33 | Re: Controlling hot standby |