On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 00:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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
