| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Parsing of pg_hba.conf and authentication inconsistencies |
| Date: | 2008-08-03 04:32:19 |
| Message-ID: | 15237.1217737939@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> Certainly there isn't any reason to allow a reload of a file that is just
> going to break things when the first connection happens. For that matter,
> why would we ever not want to parse it at HUP time rather than connect time?
Two or three reasons why not were already mentioned upthread, but for
the stubborn, here's another one: are you volunteering to write the code
that backs out the config-file reload after the checks have determined
it was bad? Given the amount of pain we suffered trying to make GUC do
something similar, any sane person would run screaming from the
prospect.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2008-08-03 06:11:53 | Re: Re: [Pljava-dev] Should creating a new base type require superuser status? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-08-03 04:14:16 | Re: Parsing of pg_hba.conf and authentication inconsistencies |