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