On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 17:36 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > The main thing for me was that it logged something. The above two ways > > occurred to me and figured we'd end up discussing it. > > > > The first way is slightly confusing for the reason stated, agreed. By > > using the same form of words as is used currently, all existing scripts > > that search for connection details will all still work. The second way > > is more informative, if you don't know "replication" is a > > pseudo-database, but it will break all existing scripts. > > > > My own feeling was that breaking existing scripts was not a price worth > > paying for the extra information in the second form of the message, > > since its just the same words re-arranged. > > Since the meaning of the first message is different between 8.4 and 9.0 > (in 8.4, the normal connection to the database 'replication', in 9.0, the > connection for replication from the standby server), we would still need > to change the existing scripts. No? > > What is worse is that we can connect to the real database 'replication' > in 9.0. So we might be unable to discern that normal connection from the > replication connection by seeing the first message.
So we are allowing a database to be called "REPLICATION"? Surely there are some significant problems in that case. How will access control to that database work in the pg_hba.conf? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
