* Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote: > 2015-02-27 17:59 GMT+01:00 Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>: > > I don't think we actually care what the "current contents" are from the > > backend's point of view- after all, when does an individual backend ever > > use the contents of pg_hba.conf after it's up and running? What would > > make sense, to me at least, would be: > > > > pg_hba_configured() -- spits back whatever the config file has > > pg_hba_active() -- shows what the postmaster is using currently > > I disagree and I dislike this direction. It is looks like over engineering. > > * load every time is wrong, because you will see possibly not active data.
That's the point of the two functions- one to give you what a reload *now* would, and one to see what's currently active.
> * ignore reload is a attack to mental health of our users.
Huh?
this topic should be divided, please. One part - functions for loading pg_hba and translating to some table. Can be two, can be one with one parameter. It will be used probably by advanced user, and I am able to accept it like you or Tomas proposed. Second part is the content of view pg_hba_conf. It should be only one and should to view a active content. I mean a content that is actively used - when other session is started. I am strongly against the behave, when I have to close session to refresh a content of this view (after reload) - and I am against to see there not active content.
Regards
Pavel
> It should to work like "pg_settings". I need to see "what is wrong in this > moment" in pg_hba.conf, not what was or what will be wrong.
That's what pg_hba_active() would be from above, yes. > We can load any config files via admin contrib module - so there is not > necessary repeat same functionality
That's hardly the same- I can't (easily, anyway) join the results of pg_read() to pg_hba_active() and see what's different or the same.
