Re: Bad error message on valuntil

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bad error message on valuntil
Date: 2013-06-08 18:38:28
Message-ID: 51B37A24.3040509@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 06/07/2013 12:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> On 06/07/2013 11:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think it's intentional that we don't tell the *client* that level of
>>> detail.
>
>> Why? That seems rather silly.
>
> The general policy on authentication failure reports is that we don't
> tell the client anything it doesn't know already about what the auth
> method is. We can log additional info into the postmaster log if it

I was looking at the code and I saw this catchall:

default:
errstr = gettext_noop("authentication failed
for user \"%s\": invalid authentication method");
break;

I think we could make the argument that if valuntil is expired that the
authentication method is invalid. Thoughts?

Else I am trying to come up with some decent wording... something like:

Authentication failed: not all authentication tokens were met

?

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Janes 2013-06-08 19:02:12 Re: Hard limit on WAL space used (because PANIC sucks)
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2013-06-08 18:35:34 Re: system catalog pg_rewrite column ev_attr document description problem