Обсуждение: Bug in pg_hba.conf or pg_basebackup concerning replication connections
All, If I have the following line in pg_hba.conf: host replication replication all md5 pg_basebackup -x -v -P -h master1 -U replication -D $PGDATA pg_basebackup: could not connect to server: FATAL: no pg_hba.conf entry for replication connection from host "216.121.61.233",user "replication" But, if I change it to "all" users, replication succeeds: host replication all all md5 ... even if the user "postgres" (the only other user in this test) is declared "with noreplication". I can't figure out what's going wrong here; either HBA is broken and won't accept a replication line unless user is "all",or pgbasebackup is doing something to test a connection as "postgres", even though no such connection attempt showsup in the logs. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com San Francisco
On 10 April 2011 04:23, Joshua Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > If I have the following line in pg_hba.conf: > > host replication replication all md5 > > pg_basebackup -x -v -P -h master1 -U replication -D $PGDATA > pg_basebackup: could not connect to server: FATAL: no pg_hba.conf entry for replication connection from host "216.121.61.233",user "replication" > Welcome to the wonderful world of keywords in hba not being specific to fields. I encountered this problem myself back in Oct 2010 [1] and predicted that it would bite other users. You've been kind enough to validate that prediction. I submitted a WIP patch aimed at fixing it just over a week ago [2]. Until that patch (or some other solution) goes through, you'll need to quote "replication" in your hba.conf if you want to use it as a username. Cheers, BJ [1] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/AANLkTi=q8DZj79OKrWc-kE9zg-rH-1tcQdqbsbKfO1zF@mail.gmail.com [2] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/AANLkTin8p0SoN1YJeXO3cgiDLxev67oh4c7VtJ7e0h4O@mail.gmail.com
> Welcome to the wonderful world of keywords in hba not being specific > to fields. I encountered this problem myself back in Oct 2010 [1] and > predicted that it would bite other users. You've been kind enough to > validate that prediction. I submitted a WIP patch aimed at fixing it > just over a week ago [2]. Well, I'd like to add this to the Open Issues. Given that I managed to hit this issue pretty much immediately on a blind test, I'm not going to be even close to the last user who experiences it. Has this always been an issue if you have users and databases in pg_hba.conf with the same name? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On 04/09/2011 03:18 PM, Brendan Jurd wrote: > On 10 April 2011 04:23, Joshua Berkus<josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> If I have the following line in pg_hba.conf: >> >> host replication replication all md5 >> >> pg_basebackup -x -v -P -h master1 -U replication -D $PGDATA >> pg_basebackup: could not connect to server: FATAL: no pg_hba.conf entry for replication connection from host "216.121.61.233",user "replication" >> > Welcome to the wonderful world of keywords in hba not being specific > to fields. I encountered this problem myself back in Oct 2010 [1] and > predicted that it would bite other users. You've been kind enough to > validate that prediction. I submitted a WIP patch aimed at fixing it > just over a week ago [2]. > > Until that patch (or some other solution) goes through, you'll need to > quote "replication" in your hba.conf if you want to use it as a > username. > > Cheers, > BJ > > [1] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/AANLkTi=q8DZj79OKrWc-kE9zg-rH-1tcQdqbsbKfO1zF@mail.gmail.com > [2] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/AANLkTin8p0SoN1YJeXO3cgiDLxev67oh4c7VtJ7e0h4O@mail.gmail.com > That's a 2000 line patch that looks like it's out of the question now. But I think this should fix Josh's immediate problem if we want to do it: diff --git a/src/backend/libpq/hba.c b/src/backend/libpq/hba.c index 2def6ce..4306071 100644 --- a/src/backend/libpq/hba.c +++ b/src/backend/libpq/hba.c @@ -492,6 +492,8 @@ check_role(const char *role, Oid roleid, char *param_str) return true; } else if (strcmp(tok, role) == 0 || + (strcmp(tok, "replication\n") == 0 && + strcmp(role,"replication") ==0) || strcmp(tok, "all\n") == 0) return true; } Incidentally, are walsenders supposed to be able to match any db name other than 'replication'? If not, I think we have a bug in check_db(), which is probably missing an "else return false;" in the amwalsender branch. cheers andrew
On 04/09/2011 07:11 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > Incidentally, are walsenders supposed to be able to match any db name > other than 'replication'? If not, I think we have a bug in check_db(), > which is probably missing an "else return false;" in the amwalsender > branch. > Sorry, I misread the code. It will fall through. Sorry for the noise. cheers andrew
> That's a 2000 line patch that looks like it's out of the question now. > But I think this should fix Josh's immediate problem if we want to do it: I have confirmed that Andrew's patch works. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com