On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 14:13 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Guillaume Lelarge > <guillaume@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 11:58 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Rajesh Kumar Mallah > >> <mallah.rajesh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Dear List , > >> > > >> > It is been found that the entry > >> > > >> > local all all trust > >> > > >> > does not renders below redundant in pg_hba.conf > >> > > >> > local replication replicator01 trust > >> > >> I noticed this too, and I think it should. Either way, the > >> documentation isn't clear on this point -- either 'all' should include > >> the faux replication database or it should be noted in appropriate > >> places that 'all' doesn't/can't do that. > >> > > > > "all" includes all real databases, not "virtual" one. The documentation > > could probably be clearer, but "all" shouldn't include the virtual > > "replication" database. > > ok, what's your rationale for that? pg_hba.conf is a rule based system > with no distinction given for rule vs virtual databases. what if we > create more virtual databases? do you always have explicitly create a > rule for each database for each user? IMSNHO, the more I think about > it, the more I think current behavior is broken. > And I would agree (that the current behaviour is broken). Using a database name as a flag to replication connection was a false good idea. But, actually, I failed to find a better one. -- Guillaume http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info http://www.dalibo.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
