On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
+1 -- Atentamente, Jaime Casanova Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas Guayaquil - Ecuador Cel. +59387171157 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
