Pavel, * Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote: > 2015-02-27 22:26 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: > > > Right, we also need a view (or function, or both) which provides what > > > the *active* configuration of the running postmaster is. This is > > > exactly what I was proposing (or what I was intending to, at least) with > > > pg_hba_active, so, again, I think we're in agreement here. > > > > I think that's going to be a lot harder than you realize, and it will have > > undesirable security implications, in that whatever you do to expose the > > postmaster's internal state to backends will also make it visible to other > > onlookers; not to mention probably adding new failure modes. > > we can do copy of pg_hba.conf somewhere when postmaster starts or when it > is reloaded.
Please see my reply to Tom. There's no trivial way to reach into the postmaster from a backend- but we do get a copy of whatever the postmaster had when we forked, and the postmaster only reloads pg_hba.conf on a sighup and that sighup is passed down to the children, so we simply need to also reload the pg_hba.conf in the children when they get a sighup.
That's how postgresql.conf is handled, which is what pg_settings is based off of, and I believe is the behavior folks are really looking for.
