On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 02:16:03PM +0100, Albrecht Dreß wrote: > However, I could not find a specification of the format for this > file… It appears as if simply giving each database name on a > separate line does the job. Is this correct? May the file contain > comments (i.e. lines starting with “#”) or empty lines? May the > file be specified including a path (e.g. “@/some/path/databases”)?
I have been playing with this code for the last couple of days, and the answer is that you can use an absolute path or a relative path. In the case of a relative path, the code considers the base directory as the parent directory of the file this is included in. For example, /data/pg/pg_hba.conf including a @databases.conf resolves as /data/pg/databases.conf, and a @conf/databases.conf resolves as /data/pg/conf/databases.conf. The parsing of these files uses the same rules as what's done for pg_hba.conf and pg_ident.conf, so you can specify a list of user names separated by commas or even spaces, or put one name per line. Comments beginning with '#' are ignored. If you want to play with your file and see the results, I would recommend to tweak the files, and then look at the contents generated in the system view pg_hba_file_rules. Querying pg_hba_file_rules loads directly the configuration files from disk, so there is no need to reload or restart the server to see the effects any modifications would have. The documentation has already some descriptions, that you've missed, perhaps: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/auth-pg-hba-conf.html "Files included by @ constructs are read as lists of names, which can be separated by either whitespace or commas. Comments are introduced by #, just as in pg_hba.conf, and nested @ constructs are allowed. Unless the file name following @ is an absolute path, it is taken to be relative to the directory containing the referencing file." -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
