Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection
Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec>
From: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-04-14T21:57:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.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