Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, you mean move load_hba *down*, past the syslogger startup?
>>> Yeah, that would probably be all right.
>>>
>
>
>> Well, that's what I originally said, yes ;-)
>>
>
>
>> But I don't think that precludes your more general suggestion regarding
>> startup errors. In particular, I think moving the hba load down would be
>> reasonable to backpatch to 8.4, whereas I doubt the general fix would.
>>
>
> Well, the change I had in mind is only a few lines of code, and is
> fixing a behavior that you yourself are arguing is unusably broken.
> It seems like a reasonable back-patch candidate to me if we think this
> is a serious bug. But I personally wasn't seeing any of this as due for
> back-patching. The -S behavior has been like it is since forever, and
> nobody's complained before.
>
>
>
We didn't check HBA validity at startup time before, did we? I would not
be surprised to get more complaints now.
cheers
andrew
