On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 20:51, Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
We checked some of it, but we check it a whole lot more now.
+1 for backpatching at least the move of the load_hba call.
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
