On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 3/8/17 02:34, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> This patch looks good to me.
>
> committed
Thanks.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql
On 3/8/17 02:34, Michael Paquier wrote:
> This patch looks good to me.
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make cha
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 3/6/17 21:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I think that the documentation of initdb should mention that
>> pg_hba.conf entries are configured for replication connections as
>> well, something like a sentence in the Description paragraph:
>
On 3/6/17 21:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I think that the documentation of initdb should mention that
> pg_hba.conf entries are configured for replication connections as
> well, something like a sentence in the Description paragraph:
> initdb sets pg_hba.conf entries using the specified authentica
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 3/3/17 20:30, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Yeah, it looks sensible to me to keep "replication" for physical
>> replication, and switch logical replication checks to match a database
>> name in hba comparisons.
>
> I think we are OK to move
On 3/3/17 20:30, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yeah, it looks sensible to me to keep "replication" for physical
> replication, and switch logical replication checks to match a database
> name in hba comparisons.
I think we are OK to move ahead with this.
Another question would be why only enable conne
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2017, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/3/17 17:47, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Simon Riggs
>> > wrote:
>> >>> It's weirdly inconsistent now. You need a "replication" line in
>> >>>
On Thursday, March 2, 2017, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2/3/17 17:47, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Simon Riggs > wrote:
> >>> It's weirdly inconsistent now. You need a "replication" line in
> >>> pg_hba.conf to connect for logica
On 2/3/17 17:47, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> It's weirdly inconsistent now. You need a "replication" line in
>>> pg_hba.conf to connect for logical decoding, but you can't restrict that
>>> to a specific database because the database column in p
On 2/2/17 2:59 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> We currently have REPLICATION to mean "physical replication".
Well, it doesn't really mean that. The same facilities are used to
control access to both logical and physical replication.
> I think if we have another capability for logical replication then w
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 2 February 2017 at 18:48, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> On 2/2/17 8:32 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> I think we should remove the "replication" false database concept in
>>> pg_hba.conf altogether and allow any valid pg_hba rule to invoke a
>>>
On 2 February 2017 at 18:48, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 2/2/17 8:32 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I think we should remove the "replication" false database concept in
>> pg_hba.conf altogether and allow any valid pg_hba rule to invoke a
>> replication connection, if one is requested. Roles would sti
On 2/2/17 8:32 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I think we should remove the "replication" false database concept in
> pg_hba.conf altogether and allow any valid pg_hba rule to invoke a
> replication connection, if one is requested. Roles would still need
> the REPLICATION capability before this would be a
On 02/02/17 14:32, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 23 January 2017 at 04:29, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As now wal_level = replica has become the default for Postgres 10,
>> could we consider as well making replication connections enabled by
>> default in pg_hba.conf?
>
> Agreed
>
>> Thi
On 23 January 2017 at 04:29, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As now wal_level = replica has become the default for Postgres 10,
> could we consider as well making replication connections enabled by
> default in pg_hba.conf?
Agreed
> This requires just uncommenting a couple of
> lines in pg_
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 1/22/17 10:29 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > As now wal_level = replica has become the default for Postgres 10,
> > could we consider as well making replication connections enabled by
> > default in pg
On 1/22/17 10:29 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> As now wal_level = replica has become the default for Postgres 10,
> could we consider as well making replication connections enabled by
> default in pg_hba.conf? This requires just uncommenting a couple of
> lines in pg_hba.conf.sample.
Yes, I think t
Hi all,
As now wal_level = replica has become the default for Postgres 10,
could we consider as well making replication connections enabled by
default in pg_hba.conf? This requires just uncommenting a couple of
lines in pg_hba.conf.sample.
Thanks,
--
Michael
pghba_rep_default.patch
Description:
18 matches
Mail list logo