On 3/3/15 7:17 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > I think we're screwed in that regard anyway, because of the special > constructs. You'd need different logic to handle things like +role and > sameuser. We might even end up painted in a corner where we can't change > it in the future because it'll break everyone's scripts.
Yeah, I'm getting worried about this. I think most people agree that getting a peek at pg_hba.conf from within the server is useful, but everyone seems to have quite different uses for it. Greg wants to join against other catalog tables, Jim wants to reassemble a valid and accurate pg_hba.conf, Josh wants to write an editing tool. Personally, I'd like to see something as close to the actual file as possible. If there were an obviously correct way to map the various special constructs to the available SQL data types, then fine. But if there isn't, then we shouldn't give a false overinterpretation. So I'd render everything that's disputed as a plain text field. (Not even an array of text.) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
