At Mon, 28 Jan 2019 17:30:57 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote in <20190128.173057.41178374.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > At Wed, 26 Dec 2018 12:59:32 -0500, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in > <32289.1545847...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > > Hm, I agree that the para doesn't read very well now, but I think this > > could be improved further. How about something like > > > > # DATABASE can be "all", "sameuser", "samerole", "replication", a > > # database name, or a comma-separated list thereof. The "replication" > > # keyword matches replication connection requests (see example below). > > # The "all" keyword matches all database names, but not replication > > # connections. > > I'm afraid that just dropping "it must be enabled in a separate > record" leads to confusion. How about adding a comment to > replication connection examples. > > # Allow replication connections from localhost, by a user with the > # replication privilege. Each definition must have its own record.
Mmm, this doesn't seem to saying what I wanted to say there. This seems better. # Allow replication connections from localhost, by a user with # the replication privilege. They must have separate records from # non-replication connections. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
