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. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
