Re: Recognizing superuser in pg_hba.conf

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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