Re: pgsql: pg_upgrade: document possible pg_hba.conf options
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: pg_upgrade: document possible pg_hba.conf options |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20130711214855.GA12667@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: pg_upgrade: document possible pg_hba.conf options (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql: pg_upgrade: document possible pg_hba.conf options
|
Список | pgsql-committers |
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 01:43:39PM +0000, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > pg_upgrade: document possible pg_hba.conf options > > > Previously, pg_upgrade docs recommended using .pgpass if using MD5 > > > authentication to avoid being prompted for a password. Turns out pg_ctl > > > never prompts for a password, so MD5 requires .pgpass --- document that. > > > Also recommend 'peer' for authentication too. > > > Backpatch back to 9.1. > > > > When I make a commit like this, should I send an email to hackers that > > basically duplicates this information? I assume no. > > Standard operating procedure everyone follos is that you should post the > patch to -hackers first, wait a couple of hours for any possible input, > push the commit, then reply to the original -hackers thread stating you > have committed it. I don't think we need that formality with a doc patch. I don't see others doing that. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: