From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Dumping roles improvements? |
Date: | 2011-10-11 16:47:39 |
Message-ID: | 201110111647.p9BGld012062@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 10/11/2011 12:40 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> It occurs to me that we could really use two things to make it easier to
> >> move copies of database stuff around:
> >>
> >> pg_dump -r, which would include a CREATE ROLE for all roles needed to
> >> restore the database (probably without passwords), and
> >>
> >> pg_dumpall -r --no-passwords which would dump the roles but without
> >> CREATE PASSWORD statements. This would be useful for cloning databases
> >> for use in Dev, Test and Staging, where you don't what to copy the md5s
> >> of passwords for possible cracking.
> > What would this do that pg_dumpall --globals-only doesn't?
> >
>
> As stated, it would not export the passwords.
What is the logic for not dumping passwords but the CREATE ROLE
statement? I don't see how anyone would recognize that behavior as
logical. If you want to add a --no-passwords option to pg_dumpall, that
seems more logical to me.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-10-11 17:11:26 | Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-10-11 16:46:05 | Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation |