On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Aidan Van Dyk <ai...@highrise.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers