| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection |
| Date: | 2010-04-15 04:24:13 |
| Message-ID: | 22614.1271305453@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> So you'd prefer a message that is sometimes flat-out wrong over a
> message that is correct but less informative in the common case? I
> guess that could be right call, but it's not what I'd pick.
Well, as I said, I think the only way to really improve this message
is to use a different wording for the REJECT case. I'm unconvinced
that the problem justifies that, but if you're sufficiently hot about
it, that is the direction to go in; not making the the message less
useful for the 99% case.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-04-15 06:35:13 | Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-04-15 03:46:05 | Re: Rogue TODO list created |