On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 23:44, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> On 12/23/10 2:33 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> A better alternative, imv, would be to just have a & d, and mention in
>>> the release notes that users *should* create a dedicated replication
>>> role which is *not* a superuser but *does* have the replication grant,
>>> but if they don't want to change their existing configurations, they can
>>> just grant the replication privilege to whatever role they're currently
>>> using.
>
>> Well, if we really want people to change their behavior then we need to
>> make it easy for them:
>
>> 1) have a replication permission
>> 2) *by default* create a replication user with the replication
>> permission when we initdb.
>
> Yeah, I could see doing that ... the entry would be wasted if you're not
> doing any replication, but one wasted catalog entry isn't much.
>
> However, it'd be a real good idea for that role to be NOLOGIN if it's
> there by default.
That shouldn't be too hard - I'll look at making the patch do that to
make sure it *isn't* that hard ;)
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/