On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 19:38, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
>> Yeah, better make any misconfiguration very clear - let's throw an error.
>
> OK, so we need something like (untested)
>
> if (token[4] == 's') /* "hostssl" */
> {
> #ifdef USE_SSL
> + if (!EnableSSL)
> + {
> + ereport(LOG,
> + (errcode(ERRCODE_CONFIG_FILE_ERROR),
> + errmsg("hostssl requires SSL to be turned on"),
> + errhint("Set ssl = on in postgresql.conf."),
> + errcontext("line %d of configuration file \"%s\"",
> + line_num, HbaFileName)));
> + return false;
> + }
> parsedline->conntype = ctHostSSL;
> #else
> ereport(LOG,
> (errcode(ERRCODE_CONFIG_FILE_ERROR),
> errmsg("hostssl not supported on this platform"),
> errhint("Compile with --with-openssl to use SSL connections."),
> errcontext("line %d of configuration file \"%s\"",
> line_num, HbaFileName)));
> return false;
> #endif
> }
Looks good to me.
> While I'm looking at this, I notice that here (and in some other places
> in pg_hba.conf) we say "not supported on this platform" which seems
> rather bogus to me. It implies that it's not possible to have SSL
> support on the user's machine, which is most likely not the case.
> I'd be happier with "not supported by this build of PostgreSQL" or some
> such wording. Thoughts?
There seems to be a number of cases in libpq, and also in pg_locale.c
that says just hat. But in guc.c, we say "SSL is not supported by
this build". If we change it, we should change it to the same
(including whether "of PostgreSQL" is included).
Refering to the build seems more logical, yes.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
