Re: Fwd: Keywords in pg_hba.conf should be field-specific

From: Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Keywords in pg_hba.conf should be field-specific
Date: 2011-06-22 02:38:36
Message-ID: BANLkTinDnChqTJQVAgq152u0k68dDnLA6A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 22 June 2011 00:47, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar jun 21 00:59:44 -0400 2011:
>>> because >>pamservice<< - is known keyword, but 'pamservice' is some
>>> literal without any mean. You should to use a makro token_is_keyword
>>> more often.
>
>> Yeah, I wondered about this too (same with auth types, i.e. do we accept
>> quoted "hostssl" and so on or should that by rejected?).  I opted for
>> leaving it alone, but maybe this needs to be fixed.  (Now that I think
>> about it, what we should do first is verify whether it works with quotes
>> in the unpatched code).
>
> AFAICS, this is only important in places where the syntax allows either
> a keyword or an identifier.  If only a keyword is possible, there is no
> value in rejecting it because it's quoted.  And, when you do the test,
> I think you'll find that it would be breaking hba files that used to
> work (though admittedly, it's doubtful that there are any such in the
> field).

Yes, I agree, and this was my thinking when I came up against this
while writing the original patch. It doesn't help to treat "hostssl"
differently than hostssl, because quoted identifiers are meaningless
in that context.

Cheers,
BJ

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-06-22 02:58:21 Re: smallserial / serial2
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-06-22 02:37:31 Re: deadlock_timeout at < PGC_SIGHUP?