From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
Cc: | Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah(dot)rajesh(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: "all" not inclusive of "replication" in pg_hba.conf |
Date: | 2011-09-26 19:30:51 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0wAcr4P4+4pmUfMrss712xsTQvyZMxU=PXUvpJK-j-jBw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
<guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> And I would agree (that the current behaviour is broken). Using a
> database name as a flag to replication connection was a false good idea.
> But, actually, I failed to find a better one.
Well, that may or may not be a good idea, but that's a separate issue.
pg_hba.conf has a very specific way of working, and the replication
'database' doesn't work that way -- it should follow the same rules
the other databases do since it's stored in the same area and should
implicitly use the same mechanics. A cleaner way of doing it might
have been to introduce a separate area for virtual databases for
example (and this might have mitigated pain for the non-zero chance
for users that already have a database named 'replication').
Maybe it's too late to change it now, though :(, we should do
something about the current situation, even if the best we can come up
with is putting a clearly worded disclaimer into the docs. I still
think it's better to make 'all' work though.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John R Pierce | 2011-09-26 19:33:35 | Re: Pg and compress |
Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2011-09-26 19:23:48 | Re: "all" not inclusive of "replication" in pg_hba.conf |