On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 20:51, Andrew Dunstan<and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >> >>> >>> Tom Lane wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Oh, you mean move load_hba *down*, past the syslogger startup? >>>> Yeah, that would probably be all right. >>>> >> >> >>> >>> Well, that's what I originally said, yes ;-) >>> >> >> >>> >>> But I don't think that precludes your more general suggestion regarding >>> startup errors. In particular, I think moving the hba load down would be >>> reasonable to backpatch to 8.4, whereas I doubt the general fix would. >>> >> >> Well, the change I had in mind is only a few lines of code, and is >> fixing a behavior that you yourself are arguing is unusably broken. >> It seems like a reasonable back-patch candidate to me if we think this >> is a serious bug. But I personally wasn't seeing any of this as due for >> back-patching. The -S behavior has been like it is since forever, and >> nobody's complained before. >> >> >> > > We didn't check HBA validity at startup time before, did we? I would not be > surprised to get more complaints now.
We checked some of it, but we check it a whole lot more now. +1 for backpatching at least the move of the load_hba call. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
