On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> writes: >> Hmm.. is it worth going back to my proposal? > > I don't recall exactly what proposal you might be referring to, but
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-01/msg00400.php > I'm hesitant to put any large amount of work into hacking .pgpass > processing for this. The whole business of replication authorization > is likely to get revisited in 9.1, no? I think a cheap-and-cheerful > solution is about right for the moment. Fair enough. My proposal patch might be too large to apply at this point. >> - snprintf(conninfo_repl, sizeof(conninfo_repl), "%s >> replication=true", conninfo); >> + snprintf(conninfo_repl, sizeof(conninfo_repl), "%s >> database=replication replication=true", conninfo); Tom's proposal is very small, but we cannot distinguish the password for replication purpose from that for the real database named "replication". Is this OK? I can live with this as far as it's documented. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers