On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca> wrote:
>> I think it sort of just died. I'm in favour of making sure we don't
>> give out any extra information, so if the objection to the message is
>> simply that "no pg_hba.conf entry" is "counterfactual" when there is an
>> entry rejecting it, how about:
>> "No pg_hba.conf authorizing entry"
>>
>> That's no longer counter-factual, and works for both no entry, and a
>> rejecting entry...
>
> That works for me. I don't have strong feelings about it so I'd
> probably be OK to a variety of solutions subject to my previous
> remarks, but that seems as good as anything.
Although on further reflection, part of me feels like it might be even
simpler and clearer to simply say:
connection not authorized
...Robert
