From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Roles for pg_basebackup |
Date: | 2020-05-01 03:29:09 |
Message-ID: | b460f2fc-36f4-b5e9-fea1-49f2e26b31a7@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On 2020/04/28 17:15, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 28 Apr 2020, at 07:22, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/04/28 13:37, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:16:41PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>>> Based on a recent conversation about backups I had I propose a small tweak to
>>>> the pg_basebackup documentation. Listing the user types in the reverse order
>>>> from today, putting superuser last, makes it IMO a little clearer that a
>>>> REPLICATION role is preferrable to using a superuser for running backups.
>>> Makes sense to me. We do that in logical-replication.sgml as well as
>>> pg_rewind.sgml (the latter outlines superuser rights last).
>>
>> Seems there are other documentations having the similar description,
>> for example, pg_receivewal.sgml, func.sgml and high-availability.sgml.
>> Isn't it better to update also them at the same time?
>
> That doe make sense. I've updated the places where I think a user configuring
> the system might conceivably infer a preference from the order, but have left
> the other ones as is.
Thanks for updating the patch! It looks good to me.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-05-03 06:53:31 | Re: Roles for pg_basebackup |
Previous Message | grg bnc | 2020-04-30 23:04:51 | Re: adding a TOC to the psql reference page |