Hi, On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 11:03:46AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Pushing forward with 0001 by the end of the CF is the part that has no > controversy IMO, and I have no objections to it. Now, after looking > at this part, I found a few things, as of: > - HbaToken, the set of elements in the lists of TokenizedAuthLine, is > a weird to use as this layer gets used by both pg_hba.conf and > pg_indent.conf before transforming them into each HbaLine and > IdentLine. While making this part of the internals exposed, I think > that we'd better rename that to AuthToken at least. This impacts the > names of some routines internal to hba.c to copy and create > AuthTokens.
Yeah, I thought about it but didn't rename it given your concerns about git history. I'm fine either way. > - s/gethba_options/get_hba_options/, to be consistent with > fill_hba_view() and other things. > - The comment at the top of tokenize_auth_file() needed a refresh. > > That's mostly cosmetic, and the rest of the code moved is identical. > So at the end this part looks rather commitable to me. Looks good to me, thanks. > I have not been able to test 0002 in details, but it looks rather > rather sane to me at quick glance, and it is simple. The argument > about more TAP tests applies to it, though, even if there is one SQL > test to check the function execution. It is probably better to not > consider 0003 and 0004 for this CF. No objection to moving 0003 and 0004 to the next commitfest.