Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection
in [PgSql]
|
From: Bruce Momjian on 14 Apr 2010 20:31 Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes: > > What's wrong with something like "connection not permitted" or > > "connection not authorized"? > > The case that we're trying to cater to with the existing wording is > novice DBAs, who are likely to stare at such a message and not even > realize that pg_hba.conf is what they need to change. Frankly, by > the time anyone is using REJECT entries they are probably advanced > enough to not need much help from the error message; but what you > propose is an absolute lock to increase the number of newbie questions > on the lists by a large factor. Agreed. I would rather have an inaccurate error message that mentions pg_hba.conf than an accurate one that doesn't. Error messages should always point at a solution, if possible. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 14 Apr 2010 20:37 On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes: >> > What's wrong with something like "connection not permitted" or >> > "connection not authorized"? >> >> The case that we're trying to cater to with the existing wording is >> novice DBAs, who are likely to stare at such a message and not even >> realize that pg_hba.conf is what they need to change. Frankly, by >> the time anyone is using REJECT entries they are probably advanced >> enough to not need much help from the error message; but what you >> propose is an absolute lock to increase the number of newbie questions >> on the lists by a large factor. > > Agreed. I would rather have an inaccurate error message that mentions > pg_hba.conf than an accurate one that doesn't. > > Error messages should always point at a solution, if possible. OK, how about "connection not authorized by pg_hba.conf"? ....Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 14 Apr 2010 22:21 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes: > OK, how about "connection not authorized by pg_hba.conf"? This is still not especially helpful for novice DBAs. We want to point them in the direction that they need to add an entry to pg_hba.conf, which is 99% likely to be what's wanted. The current wording provides that hint; vague statements like the above don't. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 14 Apr 2010 22:55 On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes: >> OK, how about "connection not authorized by pg_hba.conf"? > > This is still not especially helpful for novice DBAs. We want to point > them in the direction that they need to add an entry to pg_hba.conf, > which is 99% likely to be what's wanted. The current wording provides > that hint; vague statements like the above don't. *scratches head* So you'd prefer a message that is sometimes flat-out wrong over a message that is correct but less informative in the common case? I guess that could be right call, but it's not what I'd pick. ....Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 15 Apr 2010 00:24
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes: > So you'd prefer a message that is sometimes flat-out wrong over a > message that is correct but less informative in the common case? I > guess that could be right call, but it's not what I'd pick. Well, as I said, I think the only way to really improve this message is to use a different wording for the REJECT case. I'm unconvinced that the problem justifies that, but if you're sufficiently hot about it, that is the direction to go in; not making the the message less useful for the 99% case. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |