Re: allow specifying direct role membership in pg_hba.conf

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: allow specifying direct role membership in pg_hba.conf
Date: 2021-05-17 21:55:04
Message-ID: 2918043.1621288504@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> writes:
> On 05/17/21 16:35, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> So you're saying that some entries int he parameter section would
>> depend on the db/user/ip combo and some would depend just on the ip?

> I don't *think* that's what I was saying. What I was thinking was this:
> ...

This seems pretty horrid to me, not only from a complexity standpoint,
but because it would break the principle that pg_hba.conf entries are
applied in order.

On the whole, I'm afraid that this idea is going to create a lot
more problems than it solves.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2021-05-17 22:07:30 Re: Typo in README.barrier
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-05-17 21:51:54 Re: pgsql: Move tablespace path re-creation from the makefiles to pg_regres