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: 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 02:21:45
Message-ID: 20805.1271298105@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:
> 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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2010-04-15 02:25:59 Re: How to generate specific WAL records?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-04-15 02:17:39 Re: walreceiver is uninterruptible on win32