On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Aidan Van Dyk <ai...@highrise.ca> wrote: > I think it sort of just died. I'm in favour of making sure we don't > give out any extra information, so if the objection to the message is > simply that "no pg_hba.conf entry" is "counterfactual" when there is an > entry rejecting it, how about: > "No pg_hba.conf authorizing entry" > > That's no longer counter-factual, and works for both no entry, and a > rejecting entry...
That works for me. I don't have strong feelings about it so I'd probably be OK to a variety of solutions subject to my previous remarks, but that seems as good as anything. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
