| From: | Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Keywords in pg_hba.conf should be field-specific |
| Date: | 2011-06-18 03:53:29 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTikR46GbbQdrpvMd5NhvsdwGqRfkdg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18 June 2011 13:43, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Is this really a WIP patch? I'm playing a bit with it currently, seems
> fairly sane.
>
In this case, the WIP designation is meant to convey "warning: only
casual testing has beeen done". I tried it out with various
permutations of pg_hba.conf, and it worked as advertised in those
tests, but I have not made any attempt to formulate a more rigorous
testing regimen.
In particular I haven't tested that the more exotic authentication
methods still work properly, and I can't recall whether I tested
recursive file inclusion and group membership.
Is that a wrongful use of the WIP designation?
Cheers,
BJ
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2011-06-18 06:57:22 | Re: creating CHECK constraints as NOT VALID |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-06-18 03:43:50 | Re: Fwd: Keywords in pg_hba.conf should be field-specific |