From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Robert Treat" <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Parsing of pg_hba.conf and authentication inconsistencies |
Date: | 2008-08-03 10:49:13 |
Message-ID: | 87vdyifk5y.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
>> Certainly there isn't any reason to allow a reload of a file that is just
>> going to break things when the first connection happens. For that matter,
>> why would we ever not want to parse it at HUP time rather than connect time?
>
> Two or three reasons why not were already mentioned upthread, but for
> the stubborn, here's another one: are you volunteering to write the code
> that backs out the config-file reload after the checks have determined
> it was bad? Given the amount of pain we suffered trying to make GUC do
> something similar, any sane person would run screaming from the
> prospect.
Wouldn't that be *easier* if we do more parsing in the postmaster instead of
in the backends as Magnus suggested? Then it could build a new set of
structures and if there are any errors just throw them out before replacing
the old ones.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2008-08-03 12:58:15 | Re: Parsing of pg_hba.conf and authentication inconsistencies |
Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2008-08-03 09:05:06 | Re: Auto-explain patch |