On 24/03/2010 6:29 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
So we are allowing a database to be called "REPLICATION"? Surely there
are some significant problems in that case. How will access control to
that database work in the pg_hba.conf?
Surely it should be consistent with "template0" and "postgres":
templa
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> What's the word on when you guys will be finished with the open items
> list for SR?
Sorry, I'm not sure when.
Now, I'm trying to address the open item "Walreceiver is not
interruptible on win32".
It might take time to create the patch since
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 20:30 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
> > but I don't see any mention of that in the docs. How about:
> +1
Yes, plus a mention in the rep docs.
> >> That probably tips the balance towards having the alternate wording
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> but I don't see any mention of that in the docs. How about:
>
> *** client-auth.sgml 24 Mar 2010 09:44:06 +0200 1.134
> --- client-auth.sgml 24 Mar 2010 13:21:16 +0200
> ***
> *** 77,84
> a set of records,
Simon Riggs wrote:
> So we might have a pg_hba.conf that looks like this
>
> TYPE DATABASEUSER CIDR-ADDRESS METHOD
> host "replication" foo 192.168.0.5 md5
> host replication foo 192.168.0.5 md5
>
> Which looks pretty strange.
> I think we should change that, though
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 19:49 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > So we are allowing a database to be called "REPLICATION"?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Surely there
> > are some significant problems in that case. How will access control to
> > that database work
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> So we are allowing a database to be called "REPLICATION"?
Yes.
> Surely there
> are some significant problems in that case. How will access control to
> that database work in the pg_hba.conf?
We can do that by enclosing the database field of
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 17:36 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > The main thing for me was that it logged something. The above two ways
> > occurred to me and figured we'd end up discussing it.
> >
> > The first way is slightly confusing for the reaso
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> The main thing for me was that it logged something. The above two ways
> occurred to me and figured we'd end up discussing it.
>
> The first way is slightly confusing for the reason stated, agreed. By
> using the same form of words as is used c
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 10:52 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Log Message:
> > ---
> > Add connection messages for streaming replication. log_connections
> > was broken for a replication connection and no messages were
> > displayed on eith
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Log Message:
> ---
> Add connection messages for streaming replication. log_connections
> was broken for a replication connection and no messages were
> displayed on either standby or primary, at any debug level.
> Connection messages n
11 matches
Mail list logo
