Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 15:04:59 -0400
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
	Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: when the startup process doesn't
Message-ID: <20210420190458.GN20766@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: 
 <CA+TgmoaHQrgDFOBwgY16XCoMtXxsrVGFB2jNCvb7-ubuEe1MGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKGKg6_h=p03vA9_+05RAJGDDJ4R0u29f5UEhfg7bZTcSog@mail.gmail.com>
 <465221.1618879471@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoaSELPiPqNcfNG_TyDe6=VVzfyh+YvhB6-GGsWoo=jc8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABUevEwc_oP=kf6CYxNGM3KLMRBe3YBhM8+qu0oBbY_x89ifHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210420171720.56599607@firost>
 <CABUevEyTBiiDvjdKo5h=gj6W1uL6i4jOOV4nur0YZsuKvKRVXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <631849.1618942988@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20210420185150.GL20766@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <633337.1618945018@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="yGo24G/QmGjFMynD"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <633337.1618945018@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210420190458.GN20766%40tamriel.snowman.net>
Precedence: bulk


--yGo24G/QmGjFMynD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > Yeah, being able to pick up on this remotely seems like it'd be quite
> > nice.  I'm not really thrilled with the idea, but the best I've got
> > offhand for this would be a new role that's "pg_recovery_login" where an
> > admin can GRANT that role to the roles they'd like to be able to use to
> > login during the recovery process and then, for those roles, we write
> > out flat files to allow authentication without access to pg_authid,
>=20
> We got rid of those flat files for good and sufficient reasons.  I really
> really don't want to go back to having such.

Yeah, certainly is part of the reason that I didn't really like that
idea either.

> I wonder though whether we really need authentication here.  pg_ping
> already exposes whether the database is up, to anyone who can reach the
> postmaster port at all.  Would it be so horrible if the "can't accept
> connections" error message included a detail about "recovery is X%
> done"?

Ultimately it seems like it would depend on exactly what we are thinking
of returning there.  A simple percentage of recovery which has been
completed doesn't seem like it'd really be revealing too much
information though.

Thanks,

Stephen

--yGo24G/QmGjFMynD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=J6p9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--yGo24G/QmGjFMynD--