| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection |
| Date: | 2010-04-14 21:51:38 |
| Message-ID: | m2i603c8f071004141451r7177fb28x270121968c86e901@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-04-14 21:52:57 | Re: FM suffix in to_char Y/YY/YYY still screwy |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-04-14 21:45:24 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #5412: test case produced, possible race condition. |