Re: Providing catalog view to pg_hba.conf file - Patch submission

2015-03-04 22:41 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:

> On 3/3/15 7:17 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> > I think we're screwed in that regard anyway, because of the special
> > constructs. You'd need different logic to handle things like +role and
> > sameuser. We might even end up painted in a corner where we can't change
> > it in the future because it'll break everyone's scripts.
>
> Yeah, I'm getting worried about this. I think most people agree that
> getting a peek at pg_hba.conf from within the server is useful, but
> everyone seems to have quite different uses for it. Greg wants to join
> against other catalog tables, Jim wants to reassemble a valid and
> accurate pg_hba.conf, Josh wants to write an editing tool. Personally,
> I'd like to see something as close to the actual file as possible.
>
> If there were an obviously correct way to map the various special
> constructs to the available SQL data types, then fine. But if there
> isn't, then we shouldn't give a false overinterpretation. So I'd render
> everything that's disputed as a plain text field. (Not even an array of
> text.)
>

I disagree with last note - arrays where is expected are valid. I don't see
any reason why anybody have to do parsing some informations from any table.

The face of pg_hba.conf in SQL space can be different than original file -
but all data should be clean (without necessity of additional parsing)

Regards

Pavel

>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>