On 2014-02-14 11:10:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > >> In short: I suspect this approach may be fixing the wrong thing. > > > I'm curious what you're thinking would be the right thing to fix here? > > I was asking for use-cases so we could figure out what's the right thing ;-) > > The argument about wanting to assemble a pg_hba file from separately > managed configuration pieces seems to have some merit, but the weak > spot there is how do you define the search order? Or are you planning > to just cross your fingers and hope it doesn't matter too much?
The usual solution is to prepend a numeric prefix guaranteeing the search order. 00 is sysadmin stuff, 10 replication, 20 database specific or somesuch. I think most admins using automated tools to manage bigger configuration files by using some .d config directory already know how to deal with that problem. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
