On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> > What's wrong with something like "connection not permitted" or >> > "connection not authorized"? >> >> The case that we're trying to cater to with the existing wording is >> novice DBAs, who are likely to stare at such a message and not even >> realize that pg_hba.conf is what they need to change. Frankly, by >> the time anyone is using REJECT entries they are probably advanced >> enough to not need much help from the error message; but what you >> propose is an absolute lock to increase the number of newbie questions >> on the lists by a large factor. > > Agreed. I would rather have an inaccurate error message that mentions > pg_hba.conf than an accurate one that doesn't. > > Error messages should always point at a solution, if possible.
OK, how about "connection not authorized by pg_hba.conf"? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
