On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 5 January 2013 16:58, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Attached is an updated version of the patch, per the comments from Tom
>> and rebased on top of the current master. Since it's been a long time
>> ago, and some code churn in the area, anothe
On 5 January 2013 16:58, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Attached is an updated version of the patch, per the comments from Tom
> and rebased on top of the current master. Since it's been a long time
> ago, and some code churn in the area, another round of review is
> probably a good thing...
>
I took a
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> Turned out to be a bit more work than I thought, since the current
>> parser reads pg_hba byte by byte, and not line by line. So I had to
>> change that. See attached, seems reasonable?
>
> A couple of comments:
>
> * I
Magnus Hagander writes:
> Turned out to be a bit more work than I thought, since the current
> parser reads pg_hba byte by byte, and not line by line. So I had to
> change that. See attached, seems reasonable?
A couple of comments:
* In some places you have "if ((c = *(*lineptr)++) != '\0')" and
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> cases where people are modifying the wrong hba file. Can we show
>>> the source text of the hba line?
>
>> We don't currently keep the full source text around - but
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> cases where people are modifying the wrong hba file. Can we show
>> the source text of the hba line?
> We don't currently keep the full source text around - but we certainly
> could do that if we wanted to.
If we're
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> BTW, are you sure that auth_failed is only called in cases where
>>> an hba line has already been identified? Even if true today,
>>> it seems fairly risky to assum
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, are you sure that auth_failed is only called in cases where
>> an hba line has already been identified? Even if true today,
>> it seems fairly risky to assume that.
> It is true today, but yes, it might be safe t
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> When debugging strange and complex pg_hba lines, it can often be quite
>> useful to know which line is matching a particular connection that
>> failed for some reason. Because more often than not, it's actually not
>> u
Magnus Hagander writes:
> When debugging strange and complex pg_hba lines, it can often be quite
> useful to know which line is matching a particular connection that
> failed for some reason. Because more often than not, it's actually not
> using the line in pg_hba.conf that's expected.
> The eas
Le mercredi 27 juin 2012 14:54:15, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
> When debugging strange and complex pg_hba lines, it can often be quite
> useful to know which line is matching a particular connection that
> failed for some reason. Because more often than not, it's actually not
> using the line in pg_
11 matches
Mail list logo
