Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-04-15T00:37:18Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> > What's wrong with something like "connection not permitted" or >> > "connection not authorized"? >> >> The case that we're trying to cater to with the existing wording is >> novice DBAs, who are likely to stare at such a message and not even >> realize that pg_hba.conf is what they need to change. Frankly, by >> the time anyone is using REJECT entries they are probably advanced >> enough to not need much help from the error message; but what you >> propose is an absolute lock to increase the number of newbie questions >> on the lists by a large factor. > > Agreed. I would rather have an inaccurate error message that mentions > pg_hba.conf than an accurate one that doesn't. > > Error messages should always point at a solution, if possible. OK, how about "connection not authorized by pg_hba.conf"? ...Robert