Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> So you'd prefer a message that is sometimes flat-out wrong over a >> message that is correct but less informative in the common case? I >> guess that could be right call, but it's not what I'd pick. > > Well, as I said, I think the only way to really improve this message > is to use a different wording for the REJECT case. I'm unconvinced > that the problem justifies that, but if you're sufficiently hot about > it, that is the direction to go in; not making the the message less > useful for the 99% case.
How about a hint? FATAL: connection not authorized for host "[local]", user "foo", database "postgres" HINT: Make sure that you have a matching accept line in pg_hba.conf -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
