Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-04-15T04:24:13Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > So you'd prefer a message that is sometimes flat-out wrong over a > message that is correct but less informative in the common case? I > guess that could be right call, but it's not what I'd pick. Well, as I said, I think the only way to really improve this message is to use a different wording for the REJECT case. I'm unconvinced that the problem justifies that, but if you're sufficiently hot about it, that is the direction to go in; not making the the message less useful for the 99% case. regards, tom lane