Thread: Roles for pg_basebackup
Based on a recent conversation about backups I had I propose a small tweak to the pg_basebackup documentation. Listing the user types in the reverse order from today, putting superuser last, makes it IMO a little clearer that a REPLICATION role is preferrable to using a superuser for running backups. cheers ./daniel
Attachment
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:16:41PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > Based on a recent conversation about backups I had I propose a small tweak to > the pg_basebackup documentation. Listing the user types in the reverse order > from today, putting superuser last, makes it IMO a little clearer that a > REPLICATION role is preferrable to using a superuser for running backups. Makes sense to me. We do that in logical-replication.sgml as well as pg_rewind.sgml (the latter outlines superuser rights last). Any objections from others? -- Michael
Attachment
On 2020/04/28 13:37, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:16:41PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> Based on a recent conversation about backups I had I propose a small tweak to >> the pg_basebackup documentation. Listing the user types in the reverse order >> from today, putting superuser last, makes it IMO a little clearer that a >> REPLICATION role is preferrable to using a superuser for running backups. > > Makes sense to me. We do that in logical-replication.sgml as well as > pg_rewind.sgml (the latter outlines superuser rights last). Seems there are other documentations having the similar description, for example, pg_receivewal.sgml, func.sgml and high-availability.sgml. Isn't it better to update also them at the same time? > Any objections from others? No. Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
> On 28 Apr 2020, at 07:22, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > On 2020/04/28 13:37, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:16:41PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>> Based on a recent conversation about backups I had I propose a small tweak to >>> the pg_basebackup documentation. Listing the user types in the reverse order >>> from today, putting superuser last, makes it IMO a little clearer that a >>> REPLICATION role is preferrable to using a superuser for running backups. >> Makes sense to me. We do that in logical-replication.sgml as well as >> pg_rewind.sgml (the latter outlines superuser rights last). > > Seems there are other documentations having the similar description, > for example, pg_receivewal.sgml, func.sgml and high-availability.sgml. > Isn't it better to update also them at the same time? That doe make sense. I've updated the places where I think a user configuring the system might conceivably infer a preference from the order, but have left the other ones as is. cheers ./daniel
Attachment
On 2020/04/28 17:15, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> On 28 Apr 2020, at 07:22, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: >> >> On 2020/04/28 13:37, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:16:41PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>>> Based on a recent conversation about backups I had I propose a small tweak to >>>> the pg_basebackup documentation. Listing the user types in the reverse order >>>> from today, putting superuser last, makes it IMO a little clearer that a >>>> REPLICATION role is preferrable to using a superuser for running backups. >>> Makes sense to me. We do that in logical-replication.sgml as well as >>> pg_rewind.sgml (the latter outlines superuser rights last). >> >> Seems there are other documentations having the similar description, >> for example, pg_receivewal.sgml, func.sgml and high-availability.sgml. >> Isn't it better to update also them at the same time? > > That doe make sense. I've updated the places where I think a user configuring > the system might conceivably infer a preference from the order, but have left > the other ones as is. Thanks for updating the patch! It looks good to me. Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 12:29:09PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On 2020/04/28 17:15, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> That does make sense. I've updated the places where I think a user configuring >> the system might conceivably infer a preference from the order, but have left >> the other ones as is. Yeah, I spotted a couple of places in adminpack.sgml, dropuser.sgml, catalogs.sgml and config.sgml, but the intention looks different. We could always discuss more on that later on. > Thanks for updating the patch! It looks good to me. Fine for me as well as far as it goes. I'll go apply it if there are no objections. -- Michael
Attachment
On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 03:53:31PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Fine for me as well as far as it goes. I'll go apply it if there are > no objections. And done. -- Michael