Re: "all" not inclusive of "replication" in pg_hba.conf

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
<guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 11:58 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Rajesh Kumar Mallah
>> <mallah(dot)rajesh(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Dear List ,
>> >
>> > It is been found that the entry
>> >
>> > local   all         all                               trust
>> >
>> > does not renders below redundant in pg_hba.conf
>> >
>> > local replication   replicator01         trust
>>
>> I noticed this too, and I think it should.  Either way, the
>> documentation isn't clear on this point -- either 'all' should include
>> the faux replication database or it should be noted in appropriate
>> places that 'all' doesn't/can't do that.
>>
>
> "all" includes all real databases, not "virtual" one. The documentation
> could probably be clearer, but "all" shouldn't include the virtual
> "replication" database.

ok, what's your rationale for that? pg_hba.conf is a rule based system
with no distinction given for rule vs virtual databases. what if we
create more virtual databases? do you always have explicitly create a
rule for each database for each user? IMSNHO, the more I think about
it, the more I think current behavior is broken.

merlin