Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > 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. It needs copy-editing. Maybe no pg_hba.conf entry allows access for host ... user ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers