From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
Subject: | Re: Recognizing superuser in pg_hba.conf |
Date: | 2019-12-29 16:16:47 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYeB82UxEj1hGROgHGqzUSpkXcaK=KQeP5iwzYgLU3O9A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 2:02 PM Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > these keywords are syntactically distinct from ordinary names. Given
> > the precedent that "+" and "@" prefixes change what an identifier means,
> > maybe we could use "*" or some other punctuation character as a keyword
> > prefix? We'd have to give grandfather exceptions to the existing
> > keywords, at least for a while, but we could say that new ones won't be
> > recognized without the prefix.
>
> I'm all for this (and even suggested it during the IRC conversation that
> prompted this patch). It's rife with bikeshedding, though. My original
> proposal was to use '&' and Andrew Gierth would have used ':'.
I think this is a good proposal regardless of which character we
decide to use. My order of preference from highest-to-lowest would
probably be :*&, but maybe that's just because I'm reading this on
Sunday rather than on Tuesday.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-12-29 16:19:19 | Re: let's make the list of reportable GUCs configurable (was Re: Add %r substitution for psql prompts to show recovery status) |
Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2019-12-29 13:58:49 | Re: Greatest Common Divisor |