On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 07:26:38AM -0700, David Johnston wrote: > huxm wrote > > where there is a > > newline(\n) in the name. > > I can't imagine why you would want to use non-printing characters in a name, > especially a database name. Even if the hba.conf file was able to interpret > it (which it probably cannot but I do not know for certain) client > interfaces are likely to have problems as well. Most of these would not > think of interpolating a database identifier in that manner but instead > treat the name as a literal value. Even when line-continuations are allowed > they are often cosmetic in nature and the resultant newline is discarded > during the pre-execution phase of the command interpreter. > > Arguably having a check constraint on the catalog to prohibit such a name > would be more useful than trying to make such a construct functional. > > I'd guess in the immediate term the users accessing this database would need > to have "all" as their target and then you use role-based authorization to > limit which specific databases are accessible.
I suppose the cleanest solution would be to allow a \n or a backslash for line continuation, but I don't think pg_hba.conf supports those. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
