2015-02-28 1:41 GMT+01:00 Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net>: > Pavel, > > * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote: > > 2015-02-27 22:26 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > > > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > > > Right, we also need a view (or function, or both) which provides what > > > > the *active* configuration of the running postmaster is. This is > > > > exactly what I was proposing (or what I was intending to, at least) > with > > > > pg_hba_active, so, again, I think we're in agreement here. > > > > > > I think that's going to be a lot harder than you realize, and it will > have > > > undesirable security implications, in that whatever you do to expose > the > > > postmaster's internal state to backends will also make it visible to > other > > > onlookers; not to mention probably adding new failure modes. > > > > we can do copy of pg_hba.conf somewhere when postmaster starts or when it > > is reloaded. > > Please see my reply to Tom. There's no trivial way to reach into the > postmaster from a backend- but we do get a copy of whatever the > postmaster had when we forked, and the postmaster only reloads > pg_hba.conf on a sighup and that sighup is passed down to the children, > so we simply need to also reload the pg_hba.conf in the children when > they get a sighup. > > That's how postgresql.conf is handled, which is what pg_settings is > based off of, and I believe is the behavior folks are really looking > for. >
It has sense for me too. Pavel > > Thanks, > > Stephen >
