On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Well, that may or may not be a good idea, but that's a separate issue. pg_hba.conf has a very specific way of working, and the replication 'database' doesn't work that way -- it should follow the same rules the other databases do since it's stored in the same area and should implicitly use the same mechanics. A cleaner way of doing it might have been to introduce a separate area for virtual databases for example (and this might have mitigated pain for the non-zero chance for users that already have a database named 'replication'). Maybe it's too late to change it now, though :(, we should do something about the current situation, even if the best we can come up with is putting a clearly worded disclaimer into the docs. I still think it's better to make 'all' work though. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
