On 08/01/2020 23:13, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2020-01-06 17:03, Tom Lane wrote: >> So it's not clear to me whether we have any meeting of the minds >> on wanting this patch. > > This fairly far-ranging syntax reorganization of pg_hba.conf doesn't > appeal to me. pg_hba.conf is complicated enough conceptually for > users, but AFAICT nobody ever complained about the syntax or the > lexical structure specifically. Assigning meaning to randomly chosen > special characters, moreover in a security-relevant file, seems like > the wrong way to go. > > Moreover, this thread has morphed from what it says in the subject > line to changing the syntax of pg_hba.conf in a somewhat fundamental > way. So at the very least someone should post a comprehensive summary > of what is being proposed, instead of just attaching patches that > implement whatever was discussed across the thread. >
What is being proposed is what is in the Subject and the original patch. The other patch is because Tom didn't like "the continuing creep of pseudo-reserved database and user names" so I wrote a patch to mark such reserved names and rebased my original patch on top of it. Only the docs changed in the rebase. The original patch (or its rebase) is what I am interested in.
Hopefully there will be no danger of me gaining access if I have a crafted rolename?
