On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:59 AM Euler Taveira <eu...@eulerto.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2021, at 8:01 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > Before fix > ERROR: could not connect to the publisher: connection to server at > "localhost" (::1), port 5432 failed: FATAL: pg_hba.conf rejects > replication connection for host "::1", user "KapilaAm", no encryption > > After fix error: > ERROR: could not connect to the publisher: connection to server at > "localhost" (::1), port 5432 failed: FATAL: pg_hba.conf rejects > connection for host "::1", user "KapilaAm", database "postgres", no > encryption > DETAIL: Logical replication connections do not match pg_hba.conf > rules using the "replication" keyword. > > The new message is certainly an improvement because it provides an additional > component (database name) that could be used to figure out what's wrong with > the logical replication connection. However, I wouldn't like to add a DETAIL > message for something that could be easily inspected in the pg_hba.conf. The > old message leaves a doubt about which rule was used (absence of database > name) > but the new message makes this very clear. IMO with this new message, we don't > need a DETAIL message. >
You have a point. Paul, do you have any thoughts on this? > If in doubt, user can always read that documentation > (the new sentence clarifies the "replication" usage for logical replication > connections). > > Regarding the documentation, I think the new sentence a bit confusing. The > modified sentence is providing detailed information about "replication" in the > database field then you start mentioned "replication=database". Even though it > is related to the connection string, it could confuse the reader for a second. > I would say "it does not match logical replication connections". It seems > sufficient to inform the reader that he/she cannot use records with > "replication" to match logical replication connections. > Fair point. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
