* Jim Nasby (j...@nasby.net) wrote: > Would the inclusion of the entire directory be done via a single #include (or > whatever syntax) directive in pg_hba.conf?
Not sure we've even figured that out yet, but probably. > I think that's probably OK. But if we're talking about something like "hey, > if there's a pg_hba.d directory then magically slurp that in", that's far > less useful and a much bigger foot-gun. (It also wouldn't provide any value > for what Jerry (the op) needs). I agree that it's best to have it be explicit, though the packagers may go ahead and set things up such that a pg_hba.d directory exists by default on their distribution. > To summarize, here's what I've seen on this discussion: > > - People seem to generally be in favor of the idea of "includes", though it's > not completely clear if people want specific "include file X at this point in > the ruleset" or something more nebulous. My thought would be to support both individual files and directories, where files in a directory are included in C/POSIX lexical order. > - It would be useful to have a mechanism for testing a pg_hba.conf file. Agreed. > - It would also be useful for denied connections to log the actual line/file > that denied the connection. Agreed- in the postmaster log, of course. We would not change the response to the client. > - This would be a good GSoC project. That's my 2c on it at least. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature