pgsql: Don't make "replication" magical as a user name, only as a datab
Don't make "replication" magical as a user name, only as a database name, in pg_hba.conf.
Per gripe from Josh Berkus.
Branch
------
master
Details
-------
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/ed557a373c406bbb2a1843544ebbd856ca4cac47
Modified Files
--------------
src/backend/libpq/hba.c | 2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
Don't make "replication" magical as a user name, only as a database name, in pg_hba.conf.
Is it worth backporting this change to 9.0?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
On 04/10/2011 09:47 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
Don't make "replication" magical as a user name, only as a database name, in pg_hba.conf.
Is it worth backporting this change to 9.0?
I didn't because it's a behaviour change, but arguably it's just us
being ever so slightly more permissive, and nothing that now works would
change in any way, so we possibly could.
cheers
andrew
On 04/10/2011 10:17 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 04/10/2011 09:47 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net>
wrote:Don't make "replication" magical as a user name, only as a database
name, in pg_hba.conf.Is it worth backporting this change to 9.0?
I didn't because it's a behaviour change, but arguably it's just us
being ever so slightly more permissive, and nothing that now works
would change in any way, so we possibly could.
Well, nobody seems to be very fussed about this idea, so unless someone
objects I'll do this in 24 hours.
cheers
andrew