2011/6/21 Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com>: > Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar jun 21 11:04:11 -0400 2011: >> 2011/6/21 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > >> > AFAICS, this is only important in places where the syntax allows either >> > a keyword or an identifier. If only a keyword is possible, there is no >> > value in rejecting it because it's quoted. And, when you do the test, >> > I think you'll find that it would be breaking hba files that used to >> > work (though admittedly, it's doubtful that there are any such in the >> > field). >> >> It should be better documented. I don't think so this is good >> solution, but this is not too important. > > On the contrary -- we should support it but not document it. I mean, > what good would that do? If someone is so silly to uselessly quote > keywords, let them do it, but let's not encourage it.
it is argument too :) It has not good solution - one break compatibility, second is strange and undocumented :( Actually I don't remember a issues about pg_hba.conf - probably 99% users work with default configuration, so we can leave this file in current state. I am thinking so a notice in pg_hba.conf can be redesigned - almost all people don't read it, but if someone read it, then he needs a correct information - in sense, so on quotes works only where literal or known literal can be entered. Regards Pavel Stehule > > -- > Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> > The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. > PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
