Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection
Date
Msg-id n2t603c8f071004141955h57ebae18tcb2833b72e06d98a@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> OK, how about "connection not authorized by pg_hba.conf"?
>
> This is still not especially helpful for novice DBAs.  We want to point
> them in the direction that they need to add an entry to pg_hba.conf,
> which is 99% likely to be what's wanted.  The current wording provides
> that hint; vague statements like the above don't.

*scratches head*

So you'd prefer a message that is sometimes flat-out wrong over a
message that is correct but less informative in the common case?  I
guess that could be right call, but it's not what I'd pick.

...Robert


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: How to generate specific WAL records?
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: walreceiver is uninterruptible on win32