| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection |
| Date: | 2010-04-14 20:28:44 |
| Message-ID: | r2g603c8f071004141328s614e777azf4a8fac546e27763@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> wrote:
> I think it sort of just died. I'm in favour of making sure we don't
> give out any extra information, so if the objection to the message is
> simply that "no pg_hba.conf entry" is "counterfactual" when there is an
> entry rejecting it, how about:
> "No pg_hba.conf authorizing entry"
>
> That's no longer counter-factual, and works for both no entry, and a
> rejecting entry...
That works for me. I don't have strong feelings about it so I'd
probably be OK to a variety of solutions subject to my previous
remarks, but that seems as good as anything.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-14 21:24:14 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #5412: test case produced, possible race condition. |
| Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2010-04-14 20:24:13 | Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection |