| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | chiru r <chirupg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, Forums postgresql <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_basebackup issue |
| Date: | 2017-04-23 14:56:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAOR=d=3dqsJAdZjpQqtJa4Z+g2xuJzDoFMLFCL+Q4YttpQDHfw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 8:03 PM, David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 22, 2017, chiru r <chirupg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Adrian.
>>
>> It seems the code is allowing only who has Superuser/Replication role
>> directly.
>>
>> Is there any possibility in future releases they allow both case A & B
>> Users able to use pg_basebackup.
>>
>
> It does not seem wise to introduce inheritance of such powerful capabilities
> when for many years now we have not done so. It seems like reality could be
> better documented but the present behavior should stay. I also find the
> original choice to be quite sane regardless.
>
> David J.
I would point out that these roles are already inheritable elsewhere,
so it's not like adding it to the connection coming from another
machine for basebackup is somehow a new thing really, just making it
act the same in both places.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2017-04-23 15:38:10 | Re: Not sure this should be asked here but... |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2017-04-23 14:54:11 | Re: Not sure this should be asked here but... |