2015-03-04 22:41 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net>:

> On 3/3/15 7:17 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> > I think we're screwed in that regard anyway, because of the special
> > constructs. You'd need different logic to handle things like +role and
> > sameuser. We might even end up painted in a corner where we can't change
> > it in the future because it'll break everyone's scripts.
> Yeah, I'm getting worried about this.  I think most people agree that
> getting a peek at pg_hba.conf from within the server is useful, but
> everyone seems to have quite different uses for it.  Greg wants to join
> against other catalog tables, Jim wants to reassemble a valid and
> accurate pg_hba.conf, Josh wants to write an editing tool.  Personally,
> I'd like to see something as close to the actual file as possible.
> If there were an obviously correct way to map the various special
> constructs to the available SQL data types, then fine.  But if there
> isn't, then we shouldn't give a false overinterpretation.  So I'd render
> everything that's disputed as a plain text field.  (Not even an array of
> text.)

I disagree with last note - arrays where is expected are valid. I don't see
any reason why anybody have to do parsing some informations from any table.

The face of pg_hba.conf in SQL space can be different than original file -
but all data should be clean (without necessity of additional parsing)



> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to