| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: replication and pg_hba.conf |
| Date: | 2011-01-16 16:25:37 |
| Message-ID: | 8308.1295195137@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> In 9.0, we specifically require using "replication" as database name
> to start a replication session. In 9.1 we will have the REPLICATION
> attribute to a role - should we change it so that "all" in database
> includes replication connections? It certainly goes in the "principle
> of least surprise" path..
No, not at all. If we had set things up so that roles with replication
bit could *only* do replication, it might be sensible to think about
that, but we didn't.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-16 16:29:24 | Re: walreceiver fallback_application_name |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2011-01-16 16:23:16 | Re: We need to log aborted autovacuums |