From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz |
Cc: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks, masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pg(at)bowt(dot)ie |
Subject: | Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical () at walsender.c:2762 |
Date: | 2020-06-24 09:45:38 |
Message-ID: | c5761c8b-d825-3056-e506-06cd89a1e90e@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/06/24 11:56, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:51:40 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote in
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 01:02:34PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> I still maintain that adding restrictions here is a bad idea. Even
>>> disregarding the discussion of running normal queries interspersed, it's
>>> useful to be able to both request WAL and receive logical changes over
>>> the same connection. E.g. for creating a logical replica by first doing
>>> a physical base backup (vastly faster), or fetching WAL for decoding
>>> large transactions onto a standby.
>>>
>>> And I just don't see any reasons to disallow it. There's basically no
>>> reduction in complexity by doing so.
>>
>> Yeah, I still stand by the same opinion here to do nothing. I suspect
>> that we have good chances to annoy people and some cases we are
>> overlooking here, that used to work.
>
> In logical replication, a replication role is intended to be
> accessible only to the GRANTed databases. On the other hand the same
> role can create a dead copy of the whole cluster, including
> non-granted databases. It seems like a sieve missing a mesh screen.
Personally I'd like to disallow physical replication commands
when I explicitly reject physical replication connection
(i.e., set "host replication user x.x.x.x/x reject") in pg_hba.conf,
whether on physical or logical replication connection.
> I agree that that doesn't harm as far as roles are strictly managed so
> I don't insist so strongly on inhibiting the behavior. However, the
> documentation at least needs amendment.
+1
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2020-06-24 09:50:34 | [PATCH] COPY command's data format option allows only lowercase csv, text or binary |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-06-24 09:44:01 | Re: EXPLAIN: Non-parallel ancestor plan nodes exclude parallel worker instrumentation |