On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net> wrote:
>> I think Andres' point about "trust" being an essential disaster recovery
>> mode is something to consider, as well. That puts pretty strict limits
>> on what would be a credible replacement.
>
> Then let's rename it from `trust' to `disaster'... ;)
I still don't buy it. Say you have a server that connects on its own
VLAN every night to run a backup. What's wrong with trust? Would you
really be better putting it on a less-secure network and using a
password that will just have to be stored in a config file someplace?
Answer: No, you wouldn't.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
