| From: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Improving pg_hba.conf |
| Date: | 2001-06-13 17:07:04 |
| Message-ID: | 3B279DB8.E8CB5657@mohawksoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> mlw writes:
>
> > Why doesn't postgres put the contents pg_hba.conf in a table? That way it comes
> > for free when you reinitialize and restore a database?
>
> Because if you hosed that table you would have hosed your entire
> installation.
>
You could use a bki script to fix the problem in stand alone mode if need be. I
don't think breaking this table is really an issue. My only concerns would be the
chicken vs egg problem connecting to the system, and security. Assuming these issues
could be resolved, I think having this info in a table would be beneficial for
maintenance.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2001-06-13 17:16:18 | create user problem |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-06-13 15:54:28 | Re: Patch to include PAM support... |