Re: Unfriendly handling of pg_hba SSL options with SSL off

On 04/25/2011 07:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut<peter_e@gmx.net>  writes:
>> On mån, 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?
>
> 			

+1 for error.

cheers

andrew