Re: BUG #8375: pg_hba.conf: Include_dir like in postgresql.conf

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: hv(at)tbz-pariv(dot)de, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #8375: pg_hba.conf: Include_dir like in postgresql.conf
Date: 2013-08-12 13:09:53
Message-ID: CABUevEx=hbO34g1GWf=vD8P2ipM_u3-uRYfo9RDDxJ=F=-HD0w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> hv(at)tbz-pariv(dot)de writes:
>> For easier deployment it would be nice to have an include_dir directive in
>> pg_hba.conf.
>
> This doesn't seem like a remarkably good idea from here, mainly because
> entries in pg_hba.conf are critically order-dependent. Dropping random
> entries into a conf.d-like directory could produce unexpected results
> --- and in this case, "unexpected result" probably means "security
> failure".

If they are random, yes. You could easliy define them as ordered
though, by strict alphabetical ordering etc.

It's still a pretty decently sized footgun for people though, and I'm
not sure how useful it would actually be. And with the risk of
misconfiguration being a security hole rather than a badly configured
database (which would be the problem with a simliar thing for
postgresql.conf).

Perhaps the OP has a specific usecase to share where this would
actually be both safe and useful?

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2013-08-12 14:11:44 Re: [BUGS] BUG #8335: trim() un-document behaviour
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2013-08-12 11:47:53 Re: BUG #8329: UPDATE x SET x.y = x.y + z does not work in PL/pgSQL