Thread

Commits

  1. Doc: Outline REPLICATION before SUPERUSER privilege

  1. Roles for pg_basebackup

    Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> — 2020-04-27T10:16:41Z

    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.
    
    cheers ./daniel
    
    
  2. Re: Roles for pg_basebackup

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2020-04-28T04:37:55Z

    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).
    
    Any objections from others?
    --
    Michael
    
  3. Re: Roles for pg_basebackup

    Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-04-28T05:22:03Z

    
    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?
    
    > Any objections from others?
    
    No.
    
    Regards,
    
    -- 
    Fujii Masao
    Advanced Computing Technology Center
    Research and Development Headquarters
    NTT DATA CORPORATION
    
    
    
    
  4. Re: Roles for pg_basebackup

    Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> — 2020-04-28T08:15:36Z

    > On 28 Apr 2020, at 07:22, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.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.
    
    cheers ./daniel
    
    
  5. Re: Roles for pg_basebackup

    Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-05-01T03:29:09Z

    
    On 2020/04/28 17:15, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
    >> On 28 Apr 2020, at 07:22, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.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
    
    
    
    
  6. Re: Roles for pg_basebackup

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2020-05-03T06:53:31Z

    On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 12:29:09PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
    > On 2020/04/28 17:15, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
    >> That does 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.
    
    Yeah, I spotted a couple of places in adminpack.sgml, dropuser.sgml,
    catalogs.sgml and config.sgml, but the intention looks different.  We
    could always discuss more on that later on.
    
    > Thanks for updating the patch! It looks good to me.
    
    Fine for me as well as far as it goes.  I'll go apply it if there are
    no objections.
    --
    Michael
    
  7. Re: Roles for pg_basebackup

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2020-05-05T05:17:45Z

    On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 03:53:31PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
    > Fine for me as well as far as it goes.  I'll go apply it if there are
    > no objections.
    
    And done.
    --
    Michael