On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 03:12:00PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun jun 25 14:58:25 -0400 2012: > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun jun 25 11:57:36 -0400 2012: > > >> Really, I think > > >> pg_upgrade needs this option too, unless we're going to kill the > > >> problem at its root by providing a reliable way to enumerate database > > >> names without first knowing the name one that you can connect to. > > > > > > I think pg_upgrade could do this one task by using a standalone backend > > > instead of a full-blown postmaster. It should be easy enough ... > > > > Maybe, but it seems like baking even more hackery into a tool that's > > already got too much hackery. It's also hard for pg_upgrade to know > > things like - whether pg_hba.conf prohibits access to certain > > users/databases/etc. or just requires the use of authentication > > methods that happen to fail. From pg_upgrade's perspective, it would > > be nice to have a flag that starts the server in some mode where > > nobody but pg_upgrade can connect to it and all connections are > > automatically allowed, but it's not exactly clear how to implement > > "nobody but pg_upgrade can connect to it". > > Well, have it specify a private socket directory, listen only on that > (not TCP), and bypass all pg_hba rules.
This could be added to the poststmaster -b behavior, but I am concerned about the security of this. We sugest 'trust', but admins can adjust as needed. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
