On 01/30/2015 10:01 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com > <mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Yes. The contents of postgresql.conf are only mildly order-dependent. >> If you put the same setting in more than once, it matters which one is >> last. Apart from that, though, it doesn't really matter: >> wal_keep_segments=10 means the same thing if it occurs before >> max_connections=401 that it means after that. The same is not true of >> pg_hba.conf, where the order matters a lot. > > Do you mean to say that as authentication system uses just the > first record that matches to perform authentication, it could lead > to problems if an order is not maintained? Won't the same > set of problems can occur if user tries to that manually and do > it without proper care of such rules. Now the problem with > command is that user can't see the order in which entries are > being made, but it seems to me that we can provide a view or some > way to user so that the order of entries is visible and the same is > allowed to be manipulated via command.
We *can*, yes. But the technical issues around that have not been addressed. Certainly just making the new system view respond to UPDATE/INSERT/DELETE would not be sufficient. And then once we address the technical issues, we'll need to address the security implications. I think this is worth doing; there's some tremendous utility potential in having a PostgresQL which can be 100% managed via port 5432, especially for the emerging world of container-based hosting (Docker et. al.). However, it's also going to be difficult. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
