| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection |
| Date: | 2010-04-15 02:55:31 |
| Message-ID: | n2t603c8f071004141955h57ebae18tcb2833b72e06d98a@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> OK, how about "connection not authorized by pg_hba.conf"?
>
> This is still not especially helpful for novice DBAs. We want to point
> them in the direction that they need to add an entry to pg_hba.conf,
> which is 99% likely to be what's wanted. The current wording provides
> that hint; vague statements like the above don't.
*scratches head*
So you'd prefer a message that is sometimes flat-out wrong over a
message that is correct but less informative in the common case? I
guess that could be right call, but it's not what I'd pick.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-04-15 03:13:29 | Re: walreceiver is uninterruptible on win32 |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-04-15 02:25:59 | Re: How to generate specific WAL records? |