Re: Allowing multiple concurrent base backups - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: Allowing multiple concurrent base backups
Date
Msg-id AANLkTik35YADW29XxfzUyUA4v8pWZzzn0NVJNPyErVON@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Allowing multiple concurrent base backups  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Allowing multiple concurrent base backups  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 17:52, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 13.01.2011 23:32, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, here's an updated patch with all the known issues fixed.
>
> Another updated patch. Fixed bitrot, and addressed the privilege issue
> Fujii-san raised here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4D380560.3040400@enterprisedb.com.
> I changed the privilege checks so that pg_start/stop_backup() functions
> require superuser privileges again, but not for a base backup via the
> replication protocol (replication privilege is needed to establish a
> replication connection to begin with).

I'm not entirely sure the replication privilege removal is correct.
Doing that, it's no longer possible to deploy a slave *without* using
pg_basebackup, unless you are superuser. Do we really want to put that
restriction back in?

(And if we do, the docs proably need an update...)

I can't see an explicit check for the user ttempting to do
pg_stop_backup() when there is a nonexclusive backup running? Maybe
I'm reading it wrong? The case being when a user has started a backup
with pg_basebackup but then connects and manually does a
pg_stop_backup. ISTM it drops us ina codepath that just doesn't do the
decrement, but also doesn't throw an error?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch to add a primary key using an existing index
Next
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: READ ONLY fixes