Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> wrote:
>>> I think it sort of just died.  I'm in favour of making sure we don't
>>> give out any extra information, so if the objection to the message is
>>> simply that "no pg_hba.conf entry" is "counterfactual" when there is an
>>> entry rejecting it, how about:
>>>   "No pg_hba.conf authorizing entry"
>>>
>>> That's no longer counter-factual, and works for both no entry, and a
>>> rejecting entry...
>>
>> That works for me.  I don't have strong feelings about it so I'd
>> probably be OK to a variety of solutions subject to my previous
>> remarks, but that seems as good as anything.
>
> Although on further reflection, part of me feels like it might be even
> simpler and clearer to simply say:
>
> connection not authorized
>

+1

--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157