> Would it address your concern if we reworded that error message to be > more clear that the file is going to be ignored? I think that proposal > would have a better chance of success than this one. Yes, that would improve it a bit. I already suggested this in my very first message. To reiterate: I see three problems: - A.) Postgres unintuitively continues with a broken configuration - B.) Postgres does not at least inform the user that the passfile is ignored - C.) Group permissions are not allowed
And I propose one or more of the following solutions: - 1. Make the warning clearer by stating that passfile is ignored (B) - 2. Change the warning to be an error (A,B) - 3. Allow group permissions (C) - 4. Just warn, don't ignore (A,B,C) Option 4 is the easiest and the patch I submitted but does not seem to be well received Option 1 is the bare minimum IMO - it's still not great though I'd like to see options 2 & 3 (same behavior as SSH) Am Mo., 8. Sept. 2025 um 15:36 Uhr schrieb Robert Haas < robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Sat, Sep 6, 2025 at 9:52 AM Paul Ohlhauser > <bendix.ohlhau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My point is not that the user is not happy, that they have to change > permissions. > > It is that the user would rather get a clear error message than to get > two separate messages (warning that doesn't mention "ignore" and > authentication error) they need to connect to understand what is going on. > > Would it address your concern if we reworded that error message to be > more clear that the file is going to be ignored? I think that proposal > would have a better chance of success than this one. > > -- > Robert Haas > EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com >
