On 03/05/2014 10:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> This patch still treats "allow a walsender to connect to a database"
> as a separate feature from "allow logical replication".  I'm not
> convinced that's a good idea. What you're proposing to do is allow
> replication=database in addition to replication=true and
> replication=false.  But how about instead allowing
> replication=physical and replication=logical?  "physical" can just be
> a synonym for "true" and the database name can be ignored as it is
> today.  "logical" can pay attention the database name.  I'm not
> totally wedded to that exact design, but basically, I'm not
> comfortable with allowing a physical WAL sender to connect to a
> database in advance of a concrete need.  We might want to leave some
> room to go there later if we think it's a likely direction, but
> allowing people to do it in advance of any functional advantage just
> seems like a recipe for bugs.  Practically nobody will run that way so
> breakage won't be timely detected.  (And no, I don't know exactly what
> will break.)

Personally, I'd prefer to just have the permission here governed by the
existing replication permission; why make things complicated for users?
 But maybe Andres has some other requirement he's trying to fullfill?

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to