From: | Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add inline comments to the pg_hba_file_rules view |
Date: | 2023-09-28 09:55:58 |
Message-ID: | 67fbaedc-6983-1f06-822d-6db487cb505a@uni-muenster.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Daniel
On 27.09.23 10:21, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> An annotation syntax specifically for this would address my concern,
> but the
> argument that pg_hba (and related code) is border-line too complicated as it is
> does hold some water. Complexity in code can lead to bugs, but complexity in
> syntax can lead to misconfigurations or unintentional infosec leaks which is
> usually more problematic.
Yeah, that's why the possibility to use the normal comments for this
feature seemed at first so appealing :)
> I would propose to not worry about code and instead just discuss a potential
> new format for annotations, and only implement parsing and handling once
> something has been agreed upon. This should be in a new thread however to
> ensure visibility, since it's beyond the subject of this thread.
Sounds good! I will open a new thread as soon as I get back home, so
that we can collect some ideas.
Thanks
Jim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2023-09-28 09:58:12 | Re: Latches vs lwlock contention |
Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2023-09-28 09:32:21 | Re: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node |