Tom Lane wrote:
> > Yes, but didn't the old code prompt you for passwords, or silently work
> > if you had things set to 'trust', while our new code requires
> > super-user?
>
> If you have things set to "trust", you can be superuser, eh?
>
> A password approach might be workable using ~/.pgpass, but only in a
> scenario where (a) a non-superuser has everyone else's passwords in his
> ~/.pgpass, and (b) there are no superuser-owned objects in the dump.
> Neither of those assumptions hold up to scrutiny.
>
> In practice I think use-set-session-auth is vastly the superior
> technique, especially considering you can use --no-owner if you
> really don't want any SET SESSION AUTH commands in there.
Agreed. Sorry for the confusion I caused.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073