Following a suggestion and patch from Klaus Naumann, the recovery.conf
file can now accept comments
No patch supplied at present (anoncvs is down), but here is the
annotated recovery.conf.sample
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
# ---
# PostgreSQL recovery config file
# --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> No reason Greg can't do it if he wants to ... but the .sample file
> itself is certainly not all that needs changing.
No problem. I didn't expect the patch to pass as is, just wanted
to get my foot in the door. :)
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane [EM
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
[ There is text before PGP section. ]
>
[ PGP not available, raw data follows ]
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > No reason Greg can't do it if he wants to ... but the .sample file
> > itself is certainly not all that needs changing.
>
> No
Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> There is no way to show schema permissions in psql.
>
> The alternatives are:
>
> 1) A new \dpn command
>
> 2) Extend \dp to also show rights for schemas, but then we need
> an extra column to describe what kind of object it is, and it
> would mess up the
>The only part of this discussion that I'd really be prepared
>to buy into
>is the part about *if* you use -W or --pwfile, then set up pg_hba.conf
>with MD5 as the default auth (because that's probably what the user
>wants anyway). But otherwise I think we should leave initdb's behavior
>alone.
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >The only part of this discussion that I'd really be prepared
> >to buy into
> >is the part about *if* you use -W or --pwfile, then set up pg_hba.conf
> >with MD5 as the default auth (because that's probably what the user
> >wants anyway). But otherwise I think we should
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The only part of this discussion that I'd really be prepared=20
>> to buy into
>> is the part about *if* you use -W or --pwfile, then set up pg_hba.conf
>> with MD5 as the default auth (because that's probably what the user
>> wants anyway).
> Ok. H
How is this patch supposed to work? Do people need to modify
postgresql.conf and then sighup the postmaster? It seems more logical
for the super-user to call a server-side function. You have
pg_logfile_rotate(), but that doesn't send a sighup to the postmaster so
all the backends will reread t
>>> The only part of this discussion that I'd really be prepared=20
>>> to buy into
>>> is the part about *if* you use -W or --pwfile, then set up
>pg_hba.conf
>>> with MD5 as the default auth (because that's probably what the user
>>> wants anyway).
>
>> Ok. Here is a patch that does this.
>
>...
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Might still be worth adding "--ident" as a parameter anyway, but in that
>> case only to help the distros that need it. Or not, because they already
>> have a way to deal with it.
> I think --ident would be very helpful, and we
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, looking at the issue of backends all reloading their
> postgresql.conf files at different times and sending output to different
> files, I wonder if it would be best to create a log process and have
> each backend connect to that. That way, all
Bruce Momjian wrote:
How is this patch supposed to work? Do people need to modify
postgresql.conf and then sighup the postmaster? It seems more logical
for the super-user to call a server-side function.
I assume calling pg_logfile_rotate() to be the standard way. calling
pg_logfile_rotate wil
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > However, looking at the issue of backends all reloading their
> > postgresql.conf files at different times and sending output to different
> > files, I wonder if it would be best to create a log process and have
> > each backend connec
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 22:27, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think --ident would be very helpful, and we know with OS's support
> > ident too.
>
> If we're going to be doing sed-like substitutions on pg_hba.conf.sample,
> then we really really wanna discourage dis
Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > How is this patch supposed to work? Do people need to modify
> > postgresql.conf and then sighup the postmaster? It seems more logical
> > for the super-user to call a server-side function.
>
> I assume calling pg_logfile_rotate() to be the stan
Robert Treat wrote:
> > Woh, I didn't think we agreed that the default would change from
> > 'trust', only that we would now emit a warning and allow other
> > authentication methods to be specified at initdb time.
> >
>
> I sure hope not (and that was my understanding as well)
>
> Incidentally
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 23:58, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > New release of patch, at v5_1 ... for serious testing
> > what's in
> > - Point in Time Recovery now worksplease check carefully
> > - additional options in recovery.conf
> > (including code contributed to PITR from Kla
Simon Riggs wrote:
> New release of patch, at v5_1 ... for serious testing
> what's in
> - Point in Time Recovery now worksplease check carefully
> - additional options in recovery.conf
> (including code contributed to PITR from Klaus Naumann)
>
> what's not (yet)
> - Timelines...though I thi
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > not to mention the
> >more basic problem that the comments will now be wrong.
>
> That, however, it is correct :-( Sloppy.
>
> How about a text along the line of:
> CAUTION: Configuring the system for "trust" authentication allows any
> local user to connect using any P
Now that I understand Andreas's patch, and the way he is using shared
memory to store only the timestamp, and how he checks shared memory on
every elog call, I no longer see problems with his method.
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Br
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I saw Andreas demonstrating the viewing of server log files from pgadmin
> at Germany Linuxtag, and it certainly was impressive. However, for
> heavy, general usage, I don't think this patch is going to work.
That's my gut feeling as well.
> Probably
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:44, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > not to mention the
> > >more basic problem that the comments will now be wrong.
> >
> > That, however, it is correct :-( Sloppy.
> >
> > How about a text along the line of:
> > CAUTION: Configuring the system for "tr
Tom Lane wrote:
That was something that bothered me too. I think in the patch as given,
the GUC parameter determining the logfile name would have to be
PGC_POSTMASTER, ie, you could not change it on the fly because the
backends wouldn't all switch together.
In my original posting it was PGC_POSTM
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>> The only part of this discussion that I'd really be prepared=20
> >>> to buy into
> >>> is the part about *if* you use -W or --pwfile, then set up
> >pg_hba.conf
> >>> with MD5 as the default auth (because that's probably what the user
> >>> wants anyway).
> >
> >> Ok.
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now that I understand Andreas's patch, and the way he is using shared
> memory to store only the timestamp, and how he checks shared memory on
> every elog call, I no longer see problems with his method.
The fundamentally unfixable problem with his metho
Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ...
> The point of this explanation is that as Debian maintainer I would have
> to disable any procedures that attempt to edit these conffiles, or at
> least ensure that their operation is under package control and produce
> only the effects that I desir
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> what's not (yet)
>> - Timelines...though I think they are useful, they may not be critical
> I am not fond of the timeline idea, especially for 7.5. Let's get usage
> cases submitted first. I can imagine timelines as causing signif
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > what's not (yet)
> >> - Timelines...though I think they are useful, they may not be critical
>
> > I am not fond of the timeline idea, especially for 7.5. Let's get usage
> > cases submitted first. I can imagi
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think that judgment is exactly backward. *Not* having timelines is
>> what will cause serious and possibly fatal mistakes during restore:
>> people will hand the wrong xlog files to restore and the software will
>> be unable to recog
This patch fixes the following bugs:
* pg_dump --clean against a pre-7.3 server output drop commands in the
form: DROP "".foo; . These will now all be output as: DROP public.foo;
* If you use ALTER USER to set user params on the cluster owner user,
these would not be dumped. This patch will no
30 matches
Mail list logo
