From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
Subject: | Re: Recognizing superuser in pg_hba.conf |
Date: | 2019-12-29 16:31:34 |
Message-ID: | 26396.1577637094@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:
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 2:02 PM Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm all for this (and even suggested it during the IRC conversation that
>> prompted this patch). It's rife with bikeshedding, though. My original
>> proposal was to use '&' and Andrew Gierth would have used ':'.
> I think this is a good proposal regardless of which character we
> decide to use. My order of preference from highest-to-lowest would
> probably be :*&, but maybe that's just because I'm reading this on
> Sunday rather than on Tuesday.
I don't have any particular objection to '&' if people prefer that.
But ':' seems like it would introduce confusion with the
variable-substitution notation used in psql and some other places.
It's not that hard to imagine that somebody might want a
variable-substitution notation in pg_hba.conf someday, so we should
leave syntax room for one, and ':' seems like a likely choice
for it (although I suppose a case could be made for '$' too).
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-12-29 16:48:19 | Re: Recognizing superuser in pg_hba.conf |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-12-29 16:19:19 | Re: let's make the list of reportable GUCs configurable (was Re: Add %r substitution for psql prompts to show recovery status) |