From: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
---|---|
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>, 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 21:57:08 |
Message-ID: | h2v3073cc9b1004141457u5f0fe6b7ue27c53b486f40eed@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Although on further reflection, part of me feels like it might be even
> simpler and clearer to simply say:
>
> connection not authorized
>
+1
--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-14 22:20:51 | Re: shared_buffers documentation |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-04-14 21:52:57 | Re: FM suffix in to_char Y/YY/YYY still screwy |