Re: 2 forks for md5?

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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?

I am thinking we should wait for someone else to notice the double log
entries before mentioning it in the docs.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073