Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jo1yU-0006sb-RU for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:45:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jo1yT-0004fg-OJ for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:45:45 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jo1yT-0004fZ-H8 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:45:45 +0000 Received: from oss.nttdata.com ([49.212.34.109]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jo1yR-0005tT-DH; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:45:44 +0000 Received: from hnk.local (p2604028-ipngn12401funabasi.chiba.ocn.ne.jp [180.1.110.28]) by oss.nttdata.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B925602D7; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 18:45:39 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.3 at oss.nttdata.com Subject: Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical () at walsender.c:2762 To: Kyotaro Horiguchi , michael@paquier.xyz Cc: andres@anarazel.de, jkatz@postgresql.org, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, davecramer@postgres.rocks, masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com, sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pg@bowt.ie References: <69edce5b-c5a4-6b1a-fe2f-9e53d1e0d19f@postgresql.org> <20200621200234.k5bdlb2emegl7g2i@alap3.anarazel.de> <20200623015140.GG50978@paquier.xyz> <20200624.115638.1224023045303890562.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> From: Fujii Masao Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 18:45:38 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200624.115638.1224023045303890562.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk On 2020/06/24 11:56, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > At Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:51:40 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote in >> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 01:02:34PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >>> I still maintain that adding restrictions here is a bad idea. Even >>> disregarding the discussion of running normal queries interspersed, it's >>> useful to be able to both request WAL and receive logical changes over >>> the same connection. E.g. for creating a logical replica by first doing >>> a physical base backup (vastly faster), or fetching WAL for decoding >>> large transactions onto a standby. >>> >>> And I just don't see any reasons to disallow it. There's basically no >>> reduction in complexity by doing so. >> >> Yeah, I still stand by the same opinion here to do nothing. I suspect >> that we have good chances to annoy people and some cases we are >> overlooking here, that used to work. > > In logical replication, a replication role is intended to be > accessible only to the GRANTed databases. On the other hand the same > role can create a dead copy of the whole cluster, including > non-granted databases. It seems like a sieve missing a mesh screen. Personally I'd like to disallow physical replication commands when I explicitly reject physical replication connection (i.e., set "host replication user x.x.x.x/x reject") in pg_hba.conf, whether on physical or logical replication connection. > I agree that that doesn't harm as far as roles are strictly managed so > I don't insist so strongly on inhibiting the behavior. However, the > documentation at least needs amendment. +1 Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION