On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 17:36 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> 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 currently, all existing scripts
> > that search for connection details will all still work. The second way
> > is more informative, if you don't know "replication" is a
> > pseudo-database, but it will break all existing scripts.
> >
> > My own feeling was that breaking existing scripts was not a price worth
> > paying for the extra information in the second form of the message,
> > since its just the same words re-arranged.
>
> Since the meaning of the first message is different between 8.4 and 9.0
> (in 8.4, the normal connection to the database 'replication', in 9.0, the
> connection for replication from the standby server), we would still need
> to change the existing scripts. No?
>
> What is worse is that we can connect to the real database 'replication'
> in 9.0. So we might be unable to discern that normal connection from the
> replication connection by seeing the first message.
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?
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
