Tom Lane wrote: > > Yes, but didn't the old code prompt you for passwords, or silently work > > if you had things set to 'trust', while our new code requires > > super-user? > > If you have things set to "trust", you can be superuser, eh? > > A password approach might be workable using ~/.pgpass, but only in a > scenario where (a) a non-superuser has everyone else's passwords in his > ~/.pgpass, and (b) there are no superuser-owned objects in the dump. > Neither of those assumptions hold up to scrutiny. > > In practice I think use-set-session-auth is vastly the superior > technique, especially considering you can use --no-owner if you > really don't want any SET SESSION AUTH commands in there.
Agreed. Sorry for the confusion I caused. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
