| From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: initdb authentication |
| Date: | 2004-07-23 08:28:41 |
| Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE1716E2@algol.sollentuna.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
> > > Ok, here is another one.
> > >
> > > Doc patches coming up if/when this one is approved.
> >
> > I think this warning is seriously going to annoy me. Can we do
> > without it?
>
> What if we skip the warning if the user specifically asks for
> 'trust'?
> Would that help?
Uh. That's how it's done. The warning is only printed if you don't
specifically pick a method.
As for the original question, yes, we can of course do without it. But I
think we shouldn't.
I still say people will get a lot less annoyed by this one than for
example the no-run-as-admin on win32. And this is just a *warning* after
all, it will install the database just fine. Or just add "-A trust".
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2004-07-23 12:21:49 | Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-07-23 08:13:44 | Re: win32 readline |