On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > On 03/05/2014 10:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> This patch still treats "allow a walsender to connect to a database" >> as a separate feature from "allow logical replication". I'm not >> convinced that's a good idea. What you're proposing to do is allow >> replication=database in addition to replication=true and >> replication=false. But how about instead allowing >> replication=physical and replication=logical? "physical" can just be >> a synonym for "true" and the database name can be ignored as it is >> today. "logical" can pay attention the database name. I'm not >> totally wedded to that exact design, but basically, I'm not >> comfortable with allowing a physical WAL sender to connect to a >> database in advance of a concrete need. We might want to leave some >> room to go there later if we think it's a likely direction, but >> allowing people to do it in advance of any functional advantage just >> seems like a recipe for bugs. Practically nobody will run that way so >> breakage won't be timely detected. (And no, I don't know exactly what >> will break.) > > Personally, I'd prefer to just have the permission here governed by the > existing replication permission; why make things complicated for users? > But maybe Andres has some other requirement he's trying to fullfill?
This isn't about permissions; it's about the fact that physical replication is cluster-wide, but logical replication is per-database. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
