| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 06:35:13 |
| Message-ID: | 4BC6B3A1.1040908@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
How about a hint?
FATAL: connection not authorized for host "[local]", user "foo",
database "postgres"
HINT: Make sure that you have a matching accept line in pg_hba.conf
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-04-15 06:54:01 | Re: Streaming replication and a disk full in primary |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-15 04:24:13 | Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection |