Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 02:06:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is there really enough demand for this to justify subtle breakage
>> of existing pg_hba.conf entries? It'd probably have been fine if
>> we did it like that originally, but I think it's a bit late now.
> Well, in 2009 the discussion was whether to backpatch or not, which
> seems a long way from saying we can't change it in a major release:
That was seven years ago, which means there's now seven more years
of precedent for the way it works today; and still we've only ever
heard the one complaint. I think documenting the gotcha more clearly
might be the right answer at this point.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
