Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Aidan Van Dyk <[email protected]> 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.
It needs copy-editing. Maybe
no pg_hba.conf entry allows access for host ... user ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
