Re: 2 forks for md5?

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Yea, we could do that, but does it make sense to downgrade the
> connection message, especially since the "connection authorized" message
> doesn't contain the hostname. We would have to add the host name to the
> "connection authorized" message and at that point there is little need
> for the "connection received" message.

The connection-authorized message could be made to carry all the info
for the normal successful-connection case, but for connection failures
(not only bad password, but any other startup failure) it isn't going
to help. So on reflection I think we'd better keep the
connection-received message --- else we'd have to add the equivalent
info to all the failure-case messages.

I'm coming to agree with Andrew that a documentation patch might be the
best answer. But where to put it ... under the description of the
log_connections GUC var?

regards, tom lane