Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, 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: 2010-04-14 22:46:35
Message-ID: 16242.1271285195@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 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.

It needs copy-editing. Maybe
no pg_hba.conf entry allows access for host ... user ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-04-14 22:53:47 Re: shared_buffers documentation
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-04-14 22:20:51 Re: shared_buffers documentation