On 25.11.2022 10:34, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 10:13:29AM +0300, Anton A. Melnikov wrote:
The test fails almost at the beginning in reset_pg_hba call after
modification pg_hba.conf and node reloading:
#t/003_peer.pl .. Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200)
#No
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 10:13:29AM +0300, Anton A. Melnikov wrote:
> The test fails almost at the beginning in reset_pg_hba call after
> modification pg_hba.conf and node reloading:
> #t/003_peer.pl .. Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200)
> #No subtests run
>
> Logs regress_log_003_peer
Hello, thanks for rapid answer!
On 25.11.2022 08:18, Michael Paquier wrote:
You are not using MSVC but MinGW, are you? The buildfarm members with
TAP tests enabled are drongo, fairywren, bowerbord and jacana. Even
though none of them are running the tests from
src/test/authentication/, this
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 07:56:08AM +0300, Anton A. Melnikov wrote:
> On Windows this test fails with error:
> # connection error: 'psql: error: connection to server at "127.0.0.1", port
> x failed:
> # FATAL: no pg_hba.conf entry for host "127.0.0.1", user "buildfarm",
> database
Hello!
On Windows this test fails with error:
# connection error: 'psql: error: connection to server at "127.0.0.1", port
x failed:
# FATAL: no pg_hba.conf entry for host "127.0.0.1", user "buildfarm", database
"postgres", no encryption'
May be disable this test for windows like in
Hi,
On 10/3/22 9:46 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 07:51:29PM +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
Agree that it could be simplified, thanks for the hints!
Attached a simplified version.
While looking at that, I have noticed that it is possible to reduce
the number of
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 07:51:29PM +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> Agree that it could be simplified, thanks for the hints!
>
> Attached a simplified version.
While looking at that, I have noticed that it is possible to reduce
the number of connection attempts (for example no need to re-test
Hi,
On 9/30/22 2:00 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 04:24:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Hmm, indeed. It would be more reliable to rely on the contents
returned by getpeereid()/getpwuid() after one successful peer
connection, then use it in the map. I was wondering
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 04:24:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hmm, indeed. It would be more reliable to rely on the contents
> returned by getpeereid()/getpwuid() after one successful peer
> connection, then use it in the map. I was wondering whether using
> stuff like getpwuid() in the
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 09:12:57AM +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> Maybe the variable name should be system_user instead or should we use
> another way to get the "SYSTEM_USER" to be used in the map?
Hmm, indeed. It would be more reliable to rely on the contents
returned by
Hi,
On 9/28/22 7:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:43:43AM +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
During the work in [1] we created a new TAP test to test the SYSTEM_USER
behavior with peer authentication.
It turns out that there is currently no TAP test for the peer
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:43:43AM +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> During the work in [1] we created a new TAP test to test the SYSTEM_USER
> behavior with peer authentication.
>
> It turns out that there is currently no TAP test for the peer
> authentication, so we think (thanks Michael for
Hi hackers,
During the work in [1] we created a new TAP test to test the SYSTEM_USER
behavior with peer authentication.
It turns out that there is currently no TAP test for the peer
authentication, so we think (thanks Michael for the suggestion [2]) that
it's better to split the work in [1]
13 matches
Mail list logo
