Re: Ticket 298: bug on pg_hba.conf editor

From: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: pgadmin-hackers <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Ticket 298: bug on pg_hba.conf editor
Date: 2011-07-16 21:17:24
Message-ID: 1310851044.3334.2.camel@laptop
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers

On Sat, 2011-07-16 at 21:11 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
> <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I worked a bit this morning on this bug. The editor was made in a way
> > that invalid configuration lines are not displayed which is wrong
> > because you can't fix a line if you stored it wrong once.
> >
> > So I did the change to allow the change of an invalid configuration
> > line, and that works well.
> >
> > But I now have many other lines that aren't supposed to appear:
> >
> > # local DATABASE USER METHOD [OPTIONS]
> > # host DATABASE USER ADDRESS METHOD [OPTIONS]
> > # hostssl DATABASE USER ADDRESS METHOD [OPTIONS]
> > # hostnossl DATABASE USER ADDRESS METHOD [OPTIONS]
> > # host name, or it is
> >
> > All are considered comments, and all have a valid first column, so all
> > are displayed. Which is a bit disturbing because they are part of the
> > comments in pg_hba.conf, they are not supposed to be "actual" lines.
> >
> > So, they match our process of identifiying lines, and so they are
> > displayed. Do you have any idea how we could not display these? I mean,
> > I can simply add a check on the line string to see if they are equal to
> > the one of the five strings above, but it seems quite a ugly hack.
>
> Why don't we just ignore anything that starts with a # ?
>

Because we need to guess which comment is an actual comment and which
comment is a disabled configuration. That allows us to hide actual
comments, and show disabled configuration. Problem is that our guess is
wrong sometimes.

> > Or do we simply choose to not care? we prefer to have the bugfix even if
> > it means to show some not "actual" config lines?
>
> Not those.
>

I don't get it, sorry :)

What do you mean by "not those"?

> > Another related question: peer, radius are not available in the method.
> > As we are in beta, I won't add them to 1.14 branch, will I?
>
> I would consider their omission to be a bug.
>

Hmmm, OK. Will fix then.

--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgadmin-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Guillaume Lelarge 2011-07-16 21:19:46 Re: Website
Previous Message Jasmin Dizdarevic 2011-07-16 20:53:42 Website