From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Allow file inclusion in pg_hba and pg_ident files |
Date: | 2022-10-26 15:32:14 |
Message-ID: | 20221026153214.nx3lqcwoqclp7zbz@jrouhaud |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 03:56:07PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> So, I have spent a good portion of today looking at what you have
> here, applying 0001 and 0003 while fixing, rebasing and testing the
> whole, discarding 0002 (we could do more for the line number and
> source file in terms of the LOGs reported for a regexec failure).
Thanks!
> Now remains 0004, which is the core of the proposal, and while it
> needs a rebase,
Have you already done a rebase while working on the patch or are you intending
to take care of it, or should I? Let's no both do the work :)
> - The TAP test, which is half the size of the patch in line number.
> Could it be possible to make it more edible, introducing a basic
> infrastructure to check a set of rules in pg_hba.conf and
> pg_ident.conf without the inclusion logic? Checks for error patterns
> (that I agree we strongly lack tests for) look like something we'd
> want to tackle independently of the inclusion logic, and it should be
> built on top of a basic test infra, at least.
I don't mind taking care of that, but before doing so I'd like to have some
feedback on whether you're ok with my approach (per my initial email about it
at [1]) or if you had some different
ideas on how to do it.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220730080936.atyxodvwlmf2wnoc@jrouhaud
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2022-10-26 17:54:44 | Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?) |
Previous Message | Egor Chindyaskin | 2022-10-26 14:47:08 | Re: Stack overflow issue |