From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Allowing multiple concurrent base backups |
Date: | 2011-01-25 03:45:33 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=6ZQzQ=S3UD3nhA=cacuq0J807Q-Qo8KbKMvC1@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm not entirely sure the replication privilege removal is correct.
>> Doing that, it's no longer possible to deploy a slave *without* using
>> pg_basebackup, unless you are superuser. Do we really want to put that
>> restriction back in?
>
> Hmm, I thought we do, I thought that was changed just to make pg_basebackup
> work without superuser privileges.
If we encourage users not to use the "replication" privilege to log in
the database, putting that restriction seems to be reasonable.
> Ok, I won't touch that. But then we'll need to decide what to do about
> Fujii's observation
> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg01934.php)
Yes. If we allow the "replication" users to call pg_start/stop_backup,
we also allow them to connect to the database even during shutdown
in order to cancel the backup.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-01-25 04:02:19 | Re: Allowing multiple concurrent base backups |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-01-25 03:30:58 | SSI patch version 14 |