Re: [HACKERS] Is "trust" really a good default?

On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 05:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> > ...
> > The point of this explanation is that as Debian maintainer I would have
> > to disable any procedures that attempt to edit these conffiles, or at
> > least ensure that their operation is under package control and produce
> > only the effects that I desire.
>
> Uh, is this relevant at all? There has been no suggestion that initdb
> should try any harder or less hard than it does now to write
> $PGDATA/pg_hba.conf. All that's been discussed is what it should write
> there. If you are going to hack on it to enforce your opinion of what
> it should do, then you'll be making the same hack either way.

It's just that if people are going to do things to initdb to accommodate
the distributions, they need to understand the constraints.

--
Oliver Elphick olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/A54310EA 92C8 39E7 280E 3631 3F0E 1EC0 5664 7A2F A543 10EA
========================================
"God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the
fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord."
I Corinthians 1:9