| From: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_hba_file_settings view patch |
| Date: | 2016-09-04 11:46:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20160904114602.xckb57htmjntlauc@msg.df7cb.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Re: Simon Riggs 2016-09-03 <CANP8+jLFDeCJ7YWuzSodKXD85oNy2Kxa40U5GRnry6ms9Mz+5A(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> pg_hba_file_settings seems a clumsy name. I'd prefer pg_hba_settings,
> since that name could live longer than the concept of pg_hba.conf,
> which seems likely to become part of ALTER SYSTEM in future, so we
> wouldn't really want the word "file" in there.
IMHO "settings" is wrong here. "pg_file_settings" means "settings in
config file (that might not been applied yet)". The contents of
pg_hba.conf are not config settings, but there doesn't appear to be a
standard name for them - 19.1 calls them "records".
Given that the patch seems to report what's on disk, "pg_hba_file"
seems a good name to me. Even if ALTER SYSTEM should become able to
update the file, it'd still be a file. (If it were the actual running
config, I'd go for "pg_hba_rules".)
Christoph
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2016-09-04 12:12:31 | Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in numeric aggregate |
| Previous Message | Emre Hasegeli | 2016-09-04 11:35:19 | Re: Transactional enum additions - was Re: Alter or rename enum value |