| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Volker Aßmann <volker(dot)assmann(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Disabling trust/ident authentication configure option |
| Date: | 2015-05-21 02:36:05 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobL0c-6W4mogNtF1CHkzbWTSaD2ogMASj5+hdJZFFnZDA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> I think Andres' point about "trust" being an essential disaster recovery
>> mode is something to consider, as well. That puts pretty strict limits
>> on what would be a credible replacement.
>
> Then let's rename it from `trust' to `disaster'... ;)
I still don't buy it. Say you have a server that connects on its own
VLAN every night to run a backup. What's wrong with trust? Would you
really be better putting it on a less-secure network and using a
password that will just have to be stored in a config file someplace?
Answer: No, you wouldn't.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-05-21 02:38:17 | Re: RFC: Non-user-resettable SET SESSION AUTHORISATION |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-05-21 02:25:34 | Re: Change pg_cancel_*() to ignore current backend |