| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Recognizing superuser in pg_hba.conf |
| Date: | 2020-01-08 22:13:49 |
| Message-ID: | d7894f4c-7143-b826-b957-40451ab26f02@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-01-06 17:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> So it's not clear to me whether we have any meeting of the minds
> on wanting this patch.
This fairly far-ranging syntax reorganization of pg_hba.conf doesn't
appeal to me. pg_hba.conf is complicated enough conceptually for users,
but AFAICT nobody ever complained about the syntax or the lexical
structure specifically. Assigning meaning to randomly chosen special
characters, moreover in a security-relevant file, seems like the wrong
way to go.
Moreover, this thread has morphed from what it says in the subject line
to changing the syntax of pg_hba.conf in a somewhat fundamental way. So
at the very least someone should post a comprehensive summary of what is
being proposed, instead of just attaching patches that implement
whatever was discussed across the thread.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-01-08 22:31:06 | Re: src/test/recovery regression failure on bionic |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-01-08 22:04:48 | Re: remove support for old Python versions |