On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Michael Banck <mba...@gmx.net> wrote: >> I think Andres' point about "trust" being an essential disaster recovery >> mode is something to consider, as well. That puts pretty strict limits >> on what would be a credible replacement. > > Then let's rename it from `trust' to `disaster'... ;)
I still don't buy it. Say you have a server that connects on its own VLAN every night to run a backup. What's wrong with trust? Would you really be better putting it on a less-secure network and using a password that will just have to be stored in a config file someplace? Answer: No, you wouldn't. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
