From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> |
Cc: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_hba_lookup function to get all matching pg_hba.conf entries |
Date: | 2015-12-23 15:37:18 |
Message-ID: | 26519.1450885038@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> writes:
> 1. Have you considered re-loading the HBA file upon call to this function
> in a local context instead of keeping it in the backends memory?
Aside from the security questions, please consider that this feature should
work similarly to the current implementation of the pg_file_settings view,
namely it tells you about what is *currently* in the on-disk files, not
necessarily what is the active setting in the postmaster's memory.
A backend could not be entirely sure about the postmaster's state anyway;
and even if it could be, one of the major applications for features like
this is testing manual changes to the files before you SIGHUP the
postmaster. So re-reading the files on each usage is a Good Thing, IMO,
even if it sounds inefficient.
> 2. I also wonder why JSONB arrays for database/user instead of TEXT[]?
Yes, that seems rather random to me too.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-12-23 15:44:39 | Re: pgbench --latency-limit option |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-12-23 15:37:00 | Re: Let PostgreSQL's On Schedule checkpoint write buffer smooth spread cycle by tuning IsCheckpointOnSchedule? |