Re: Streaming replication as a separate permissions

From: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Streaming replication as a separate permissions
Date: 2010-12-24 11:34:52
Message-ID: 4E1FCF6E-AF66-485C-8EC4-0F28C3AB12F9@phlo.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Dec24, 2010, at 05:00 , Tom Lane wrote:
> Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
>> The problem here is that you suggest NOLOGIN should mean "Not allowed
>> to issue SQL commands", which really isn't what the name "NOLOGIN"
>> conveys.
>
> No, it means "not allowed to connect".

Exactly. Which proves my point, unless you're ready to argue that
replication connections somehow don't count as "connections".

> It's possible now to issue
> commands as a NOLOGIN user, you just have to use SET ROLE to become the
> user. I think you're arguing about a design choice that was already
> made some time ago.

You've lost me, how is that an argument in your favour? I *wasn't* arguing
that NOLOGIN ought to mean "No allowed to issue SQL commands". It was what
*your* proposal of letting a role connect for replication purposes despite
a NOLOGIN flag would *make* NOLOGIN mean.

best regards,
Florian Pflug

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2010-12-24 11:34:59 Re: SQL/MED - core functionality
Previous Message Shigeru HANADA 2010-12-24 11:04:45 Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw