Re: Unfriendly handling of pg_hba SSL options with SSL off

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On mn, 2011-04-25 at 15:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, it's not just to be "helpful", it's to close off code paths that
>> are never going to be sufficiently well-tested to not have bizarre
>> failure modes.  That helps both developers (who don't have to worry
>> about testing/fixing such code paths) and users (who won't have to
>> deal with the bizarre failure modes). 

> That's of course another good reason.

Hm, does that mean we have consensus on treating it as an error?
If not, would some other people care to cast votes?

			regards, tom lane