Re: [HACKERS] Is "trust" really a good default? - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Is "trust" really a good default?
Date
Msg-id 22228.1089778092@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Is "trust" really a good default?  (Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Is "trust" really a good default?
List pgsql-patches
Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> writes:
> ...
> The point of this explanation is that as Debian maintainer I would have
> to disable any procedures that attempt to edit these conffiles, or at
> least ensure that their operation is under package control and produce
> only the effects that I desire.

Uh, is this relevant at all?  There has been no suggestion that initdb
should try any harder or less hard than it does now to write
$PGDATA/pg_hba.conf.  All that's been discussed is what it should write
there.  If you are going to hack on it to enforce your opinion of what
it should do, then you'll be making the same hack either way.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: serverlog rotation/functions
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PITR Archive Recovery plus WIP PITR