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.
...Robert
