From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, BERTHOULE Emmanuel <pgdev(at)manberth(dot)homeip(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: control pg_hba.conf via SQL |
Date: | 2006-03-30 03:31:21 |
Message-ID: | 442B5109.1050108@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>ISTM that the first requirement is for a sane API that will handle the
>>fact that HBA lines are ordered. Persistence in itself shouldn't be a
>>big problem - we already do that with some shared tables, iirc.
>>
>>
>
>I'm a bit suspicious of proposals that we move either hba or conf into
>SQL tables --- one of the main reasons why they are flat files is so
>you can still edit them after you've hosed them to the point that the
>database won't start or won't let you in. If you don't have a non-kluge
>solution to the DBA-mistake-recovery scenario, this is not going to be
>an improvement.
>
>Pushing postgresql.conf into a SQL table will also destroy all the work
>that was done recently to allow config sharing across multiple
>installations (eg the recent commit to support "include" goes out the
>window again). If we no longer care about that, why not?
>
>
>
I think we should treat pg_hba.conf and postgresql.conf as separate
cases. The proposal was only for pg_hba.conf.
There are several possible ways around the "settings hosed" issue,
including Robert's suggestion of a flag to say "don't read the table,
read this file instead".
I agree about the value of "include" for postgresql.conf.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tino Wildenhain | 2006-03-30 05:46:27 | Re: control pg_hba.conf via SQL |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2006-03-30 03:23:28 | Re: psql \c error |