Re: initdb authentication - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: initdb authentication
Date
Msg-id 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE1716E2@algol.sollentuna.se
Whole thread Raw
In response to initdb authentication  ("Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net>)
List pgsql-patches
> > > Ok, here is another one.
> > >
> > > Doc patches coming up if/when this one is approved.
> >
> > I think this warning is seriously going to annoy me.  Can we do
> > without it?
>
> What if we skip the warning if the user specifically asks for
> 'trust'?
> Would that help?

Uh. That's how it's done. The warning is only printed if you don't
specifically pick a method.

As for the original question, yes, we can of course do without it. But I
think we shouldn't.
I still say people will get a lot less annoyed by this one than for
example the no-run-as-admin on win32. And this is just a *warning* after
all, it will install the database just fine. Or just add "-A trust".

//Magnus


pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: "Magnus Hagander"
Date:
Subject: Re: win32 readline
Next
From: Andreas Pflug
Date:
Subject: Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions