Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: > On 12/23/10 2:33 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> A better alternative, imv, would be to just have a & d, and mention in >> the release notes that users *should* create a dedicated replication >> role which is *not* a superuser but *does* have the replication grant, >> but if they don't want to change their existing configurations, they can >> just grant the replication privilege to whatever role they're currently >> using.
> Well, if we really want people to change their behavior then we need to > make it easy for them: > 1) have a replication permission > 2) *by default* create a replication user with the replication > permission when we initdb. Yeah, I could see doing that ... the entry would be wasted if you're not doing any replication, but one wasted catalog entry isn't much. However, it'd be a real good idea for that role to be NOLOGIN if it's there by default. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers