On Dec24, 2010, at 05:00 , Tom Lane wrote: > Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> writes: >> The problem here is that you suggest NOLOGIN should mean "Not allowed >> to issue SQL commands", which really isn't what the name "NOLOGIN" >> conveys. > > No, it means "not allowed to connect".
Exactly. Which proves my point, unless you're ready to argue that replication connections somehow don't count as "connections". > It's possible now to issue > commands as a NOLOGIN user, you just have to use SET ROLE to become the > user. I think you're arguing about a design choice that was already > made some time ago. You've lost me, how is that an argument in your favour? I *wasn't* arguing that NOLOGIN ought to mean "No allowed to issue SQL commands". It was what *your* proposal of letting a role connect for replication purposes despite a NOLOGIN flag would *make* NOLOGIN mean. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
