| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection |
| Date: | 2010-04-20 23:13:18 |
| Message-ID: | 5802.1271805198@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I suppose the problem here is that pg_attribute and pg_class are not
> shared catalogs, so we can't read them without selecting a database.
Among other things.
> What about making a fake version of these relations that includes only
> the shared catalogs?
Well, after you solve the few dozen problems standing in the way
of that, go right ahead. I'm not holding up 9.0 for it though.
(You might want to look back at the archived discussions about how to
avoid storing entries for temp tables in these catalogs; that poses
many of the same issues.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-04-20 23:49:24 | Re: Should database = all in pg_hba.conf match a replication connection? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-04-20 23:07:32 | Re: Vacuum cancels autovacuum error message confusing? |