Re: allow specifying direct role membership in pg_hba.conf

From: Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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: 2021-05-18 01:19:00
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 05/17/21 17:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

This makes twice in a row that I've failed to see how.

If you go through the entries, in order, and simply prune from the list
the ones you can already prove would never apply to this connection, how
does that break the ordering principle?


In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2021-05-18 01:22:05 Re: "ERROR: deadlock detected" when replicating TRUNCATE
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2021-05-18 01:01:54 Re: pgsql: Move tablespace path re-creation from the makefiles to pg_regres