[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       postgresql-general
Subject:    Re: [HACKERS] Providing catalog view to pg_hba.conf file - Patch submission
From:       Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule () gmail ! com>
Date:       2015-02-28 5:33:21
Message-ID: CAFj8pRAenXC2b2rn0Ye8r80ROvoynyL8TDp81qEwYkfhfDzT4Q () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

2015-02-28 3:12 GMT+01:00 Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>:

> * Josh Berkus (josh@agliodbs.com) wrote:
> > On 02/27/2015 04:41 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > >> we can do copy of pg_hba.conf somewhere when postmaster starts or
> when it
> > >> is reloaded.
> > >
> > > Please see my reply to Tom.  There's no trivial way to reach into the
> > > postmaster from a backend- but we do get a copy of whatever the
> > > postmaster had when we forked, and the postmaster only reloads
> > > pg_hba.conf on a sighup and that sighup is passed down to the children,
> > > so we simply need to also reload the pg_hba.conf in the children when
> > > they get a sighup.
> > >
> > > That's how postgresql.conf is handled, which is what pg_settings is
> > > based off of, and I believe is the behavior folks are really looking
> > > for.
> >
> > I thought the patch in question just implemented reading the file from
> > disk, and nothing else?
> >
> > Speaking for my uses, I would rather have just that for 9.5 than wait
> > for something more sophisticated in 9.6.
>
> From my perspective, at least, the differences we're talking about are
> not enough to raise this to a 9.5-vs-9.6 issue.  I can see the use cases
> for both (which is exactly why I suggested providing both).  Having one
> would be better than nothing, but I foretell lots of subsequent
> complaints along the lines of "everything looks right according to
> pg_hba_config, but I'm getting this error!!"  Now, perhaps that's the
> right approach to go for 9.5 since it'd more-or-less force our hand to
> deal with it in 9.6 properly, but, personally, I'd be happier if we
> moved forward with providing both because everyone agrees that it makes
> sense rather than waiting to see if user complaints force our hand.
>

+1

Probably we can implement simple load pg_hba.conf and tab transformation
early. There is a agreement and not any problem.

But if we start to implement some view, then it should be fully functional
without potential issues.

Regards

Pavel


>
>         Thanks!
>
>                 Stephen
>

[Attachment #3 (text/html)]

<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-02-28 \
3:12 GMT+01:00 Stephen Frost <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:sfrost@snowman.net" \
target="_blank">sfrost@snowman.net</a>&gt;</span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span \
class="">* Josh Berkus (<a href="mailto:josh@agliodbs.com">josh@agliodbs.com</a>) \
wrote:<br> &gt; On 02/27/2015 04:41 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt;&gt; we can do copy of pg_hba.conf somewhere when postmaster starts or when \
it<br> &gt; &gt;&gt; is reloaded.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; Please see my reply to Tom.   There&#39;s no trivial way to reach into \
the<br> &gt; &gt; postmaster from a backend- but we do get a copy of whatever the<br>
&gt; &gt; postmaster had when we forked, and the postmaster only reloads<br>
&gt; &gt; pg_hba.conf on a sighup and that sighup is passed down to the children,<br>
&gt; &gt; so we simply need to also reload the pg_hba.conf in the children when<br>
&gt; &gt; they get a sighup.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; That&#39;s how postgresql.conf is handled, which is what pg_settings is<br>
&gt; &gt; based off of, and I believe is the behavior folks are really looking<br>
&gt; &gt; for.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I thought the patch in question just implemented reading the file from<br>
&gt; disk, and nothing else?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Speaking for my uses, I would rather have just that for 9.5 than wait<br>
&gt; for something more sophisticated in 9.6.<br>
<br>
</span>From my perspective, at least, the differences we&#39;re talking about are<br>
not enough to raise this to a 9.5-vs-9.6 issue.   I can see the use cases<br>
for both (which is exactly why I suggested providing both).   Having one<br>
would be better than nothing, but I foretell lots of subsequent<br>
complaints along the lines of &quot;everything looks right according to<br>
pg_hba_config, but I&#39;m getting this error!!&quot;   Now, perhaps that&#39;s \
the<br> right approach to go for 9.5 since it&#39;d more-or-less force our hand \
to<br> deal with it in 9.6 properly, but, personally, I&#39;d be happier if we<br>
moved forward with providing both because everyone agrees that it makes<br>
sense rather than waiting to see if user complaints force our \
hand.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>+1<br><br></div><div>Probably we can \
implement simple load pg_hba.conf and tab transformation early. There is a agreement \
and not any problem.<br><br></div><div>But if we start to implement some view, then \
it should be fully functional without potential \
issues.<br><br></div><div>Regards<br><br></div><div>Pavel<br></div><div>  \
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br>
            Thanks!<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
                        Stephen<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div>



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

Configure | About | News | Add a list | Sponsored by KoreLogic