On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 07:44, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 16.01.2011 22:55, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>
>>> In 9.0, we specifically require using "replication" as database name
>>> to start a replication session. In 9.1 we will have the REPLICATION
>>> attribute to a role - should we change it so that "all" in database
>>> includes replication connections? It certainly goes in the "principle
>>> of least surprise" path..
>>
>> +1. It'll eliminate an entire file to edit for replication setup, so
>> does a lot to make initial replication setup easier.
>
> No, we should by secure by default. You usually want to lock down tightly
> where replication connections can come from. You know the IP addresses of
> your standby servers, so it shouldn't be hard to
>
> If "all" includes replication connections, that makes it harder to configure
> pg_hba.conf correctly so that you allow normal connections from anywhere,
> but only allow replication connections from a specific IP address. You'd
> need two lines, first one to accept replication connections from the
> standby, and a second one to reject them from anywhere else.
Yeah, that's true.
> But I wonder if we should add lines in the default pg_hba.conf to "trust"
> replication connections from loopback, like we do for normal connections?
That wouldn't hurt. Or at least put a commented-out line with a
typical replication line.
I now it says so in the documentation that is the top comment, but
that's long enough that people don't read it, and then end up going
WTF when they realize it...
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
