Re: Inconvenience of pg_read_binary_file()

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Inconvenience of pg_read_binary_file()
Date: 2022-07-30 02:37:02
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 03:44:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Pushed after some fooling with the docs and test cases. (Notably,
> I do not think we can assume that pg_hba.conf exists in $PGDATA; some
> installations keep it elsewhere. I used instead.)

Are you sure that this last part is a good idea? We don't force the
creation of when starting a server, so this
impacts the portability of the tests with installcheck if one decides
to remove it from the data folder, and it sounds plausible to me that
some distributions do exactly that..

I guess that you could rely on config_file or hba_file instead.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-07-30 03:35:36 Re: Inconvenience of pg_read_binary_file()
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-07-30 00:22:35 Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade