From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Jerry Sievers <gsievers19(at)comcast(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: HBA files w/include support? |
Date: | 2014-02-14 16:14:59 |
Message-ID: | 20140214161459.GT4910@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-02-14 11:10:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> >> In short: I suspect this approach may be fixing the wrong thing.
>
> > I'm curious what you're thinking would be the right thing to fix here?
>
> I was asking for use-cases so we could figure out what's the right thing ;-)
>
> The argument about wanting to assemble a pg_hba file from separately
> managed configuration pieces seems to have some merit, but the weak
> spot there is how do you define the search order? Or are you planning
> to just cross your fingers and hope it doesn't matter too much?
The usual solution is to prepend a numeric prefix guaranteeing the
search order. 00 is sysadmin stuff, 10 replication, 20 database specific
or somesuch. I think most admins using automated tools to manage bigger
configuration files by using some .d config directory already know how
to deal with that problem.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | knizhnik | 2014-02-14 16:23:32 | Re: Memory ordering issue in LWLockRelease, WakeupWaiters, WALInsertSlotRelease |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-14 16:10:48 | Re: HBA files w/include support? |