| From: | Mike Nolan <nolan(at)gw(dot)tssi(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com (scott(dot)marlowe) |
| Cc: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com (Joshua D(dot) Drake), scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org (Marc G(dot) Fournier), alex(at)meerkatsoft(dot)com (Alex), postgresql(at)finner(dot)de (Frank Finner), pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PG vs MySQL |
| Date: | 2004-03-29 21:32:29 |
| Message-ID: | 200403292132.i2TLWUMX017652@gw.tssi.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> since the purpose of the pg_hba.conf file is to ensure that you never
> manage to lock yourself out of your database, might it make sense to have
> a pg_hba table in each database that can be / will be / should be(???)
> overidden by the pg_hba.conf file, thus ensuring you never get locked out,
> but allowing the vast majority of connection configuration to be handled
> by tables, with the pg_hba.conf as an emergency procedure used to get the
> warp engines online in case some drunken ensign starts singing "I'll take
> you home Kathleen" and shuts them down. (i.e. "delete from pg_hba" or
> something like it.)???
How about some kind of 'include table pg_hba' statement in the
pg_hba.conf file?
Anything prior to that could not be overridden by entries in the pg_hba
table, and the absence of an include statement means that only the file
entries are used, preserving the current behavior.
--
Mike Nolan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-29 21:36:46 | Re: PG vs MySQL |
| Previous Message | Karl O. Pinc | 2004-03-29 21:28:59 | Re: Interval constant syntax, was Re: Interval & check clause |