From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add annotation syntax to pg_hba.conf entries |
Date: | 2023-10-04 22:55:44 |
Message-ID: | 2647173.1696460144@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:
> You're probably not going to like this answer very much, but this
> doesn't seem particularly worthwhile to me.
Yeah, I was unconvinced about the number of use-cases too.
As you say, some support from other potential users could convince
me otherwise, but right now the evidence seems thin.
> The argument for this
> feature is not that this information needs to exist, but that it needs
> to be queryable from within PostgreSQL.
Not only that, but that it needs to be accessible via the
pg_hba_file_rules view. Superusers could already see the
pg_hba file's contents via pg_read_file().
Again, that's not an argument that this is a bad idea.
But it's an answer that would likely satisfy some fraction
of whatever potential users are out there, which makes the
question of how many use-cases really exist even more
pressing.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2023-10-04 23:01:26 | Re: Pre-proposal: unicode normalized text |
Previous Message | Nico Williams | 2023-10-04 22:15:47 | Re: Pre-proposal: unicode normalized text |