Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>

To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, 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: 2010-04-15T06:35:13Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

How about a hint?

FATAL:  connection not authorized for host "[local]", user "foo",
database "postgres"
HINT:  Make sure that you have a matching accept line in pg_hba.conf

-- 
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com