From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection |
Date: | 2010-04-15 07:17:46 |
Message-ID: | 1271315866.8305.3930.camel@ebony |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 00:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > So you'd prefer a message that is sometimes flat-out wrong over a
> > message that is correct but less informative in the common case? I
> > guess that could be right call, but it's not what I'd pick.
>
> Well, as I said, I think the only way to really improve this message
> is to use a different wording for the REJECT case. I'm unconvinced
> that the problem justifies that, but if you're sufficiently hot about
> it, that is the direction to go in; not making the the message less
> useful for the 99% case.
I think that would solve my original gripe, if I understood the idea.
So instead of the typical "reject" instruction we also add a
"rejectverbose" instruction that has a more verbose message. Docs would
describe it as an additional instruction to assist with debugging a
complex pg_hba.conf, with warning that if used it may assist the bad
guys also.
"pg_hba.conf rejects entry for host..."
Patch for that would be simple and clear; I can add that if we agree.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-04-15 07:45:55 | Re: walreceiver is uninterruptible on win32 |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-04-15 07:04:24 | Re: Rogue TODO list created |