On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 00:24 -0400, 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.
I think that would solve my original gripe, if I understood the idea. So instead of the typical "reject" instruction we also add a "rejectverbose" instruction that has a more verbose message. Docs would describe it as an additional instruction to assist with debugging a complex pg_hba.conf, with warning that if used it may assist the bad guys also. "pg_hba.conf rejects entry for host..." Patch for that would be simple and clear; I can add that if we agree. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
