Greetings, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > Yeah, being able to pick up on this remotely seems like it'd be quite > > nice. I'm not really thrilled with the idea, but the best I've got > > offhand for this would be a new role that's "pg_recovery_login" where an > > admin can GRANT that role to the roles they'd like to be able to use to > > login during the recovery process and then, for those roles, we write > > out flat files to allow authentication without access to pg_authid, > > We got rid of those flat files for good and sufficient reasons. I really > really don't want to go back to having such.
Yeah, certainly is part of the reason that I didn't really like that idea either. > I wonder though whether we really need authentication here. pg_ping > already exposes whether the database is up, to anyone who can reach the > postmaster port at all. Would it be so horrible if the "can't accept > connections" error message included a detail about "recovery is X% > done"? Ultimately it seems like it would depend on exactly what we are thinking of returning there. A simple percentage of recovery which has been completed doesn't seem like it'd really be revealing too much information though. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
