Re: control pg_hba.conf via SQL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
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: 2006-03-29 22:04:19
Message-ID: 1284.1143669859@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2006-03-29 22:25:08 Re: Win32 sysconfig -> pg_service.conf
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-03-29 21:49:45 Re: Index vacuum improvements