| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection |
| Date: | 2010-04-15 00:31:17 |
| Message-ID: | 201004150031.o3F0VHw13254@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > What's wrong with something like "connection not permitted" or
> > "connection not authorized"?
>
> The case that we're trying to cater to with the existing wording is
> novice DBAs, who are likely to stare at such a message and not even
> realize that pg_hba.conf is what they need to change. Frankly, by
> the time anyone is using REJECT entries they are probably advanced
> enough to not need much help from the error message; but what you
> propose is an absolute lock to increase the number of newbie questions
> on the lists by a large factor.
Agreed. I would rather have an inaccurate error message that mentions
pg_hba.conf than an accurate one that doesn't.
Error messages should always point at a solution, if possible.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-04-15 00:37:18 | Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-04-15 00:29:32 | Re: a faster compression algorithm for pg_dump |