From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 2 forks for md5? |
Date: | 2005-09-23 00:00:10 |
Message-ID: | 18227.1127433610@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Yea, we could do that, but does it make sense to downgrade the
> connection message, especially since the "connection authorized" message
> doesn't contain the hostname. We would have to add the host name to the
> "connection authorized" message and at that point there is little need
> for the "connection received" message.
The connection-authorized message could be made to carry all the info
for the normal successful-connection case, but for connection failures
(not only bad password, but any other startup failure) it isn't going
to help. So on reflection I think we'd better keep the
connection-received message --- else we'd have to add the equivalent
info to all the failure-case messages.
I'm coming to agree with Andrew that a documentation patch might be the
best answer. But where to put it ... under the description of the
log_connections GUC var?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-09-23 00:03:43 | Re: Gerbil build farm failure |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-09-22 23:54:52 | Re: Gerbil build farm failure |