Horton

Re: Streaming replication as a separate permissions

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-12-23T22:44:02Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Allow Win32 to compile under MinGW. Major changes are:

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> On 12/23/10 2:33 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> A better alternative, imv, would be to just have a & d, and mention in
>> the release notes that users *should* create a dedicated replication
>> role which is *not* a superuser but *does* have the replication grant,
>> but if they don't want to change their existing configurations, they can
>> just grant the replication privilege to whatever role they're currently
>> using.

> Well, if we really want people to change their behavior then we need to
> make it easy for them:

> 1) have a replication permission
> 2) *by default* create a replication user with the replication
> permission when we initdb.

Yeah, I could see doing that ... the entry would be wasted if you're not
doing any replication, but one wasted catalog entry isn't much.

However, it'd be a real good idea for that role to be NOLOGIN if it's
there by default.

			regards, tom lane