Tom Lane wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>
>>OK, now we are getting somewhere. I see that this would work. It's a bit
>>ugly, though - with this plan the sample file in both CVS and the
>>installation won't necessarily be what actually get put in place.
>>
>>
>
>Well, like I said, it's not real pretty. But the same is already true
>of postgresql.conf.sample --- initdb edits that. I don't see that
>having it edit pg_hba.conf.sample too is so bad.
>
>
>
>>What if some clever installer/administrator deliberately alters their
>>installed sample file?
>>
>>
>
>I don't think it would hurt them. The editing will consist of a sed
>script to comment or uncomment the line containg ::1, it wouldn't touch
>anything else.
>
>
>
>>Could we get the configure script to do it instead, since it too should
>>know about ip6 capability? (I guess then we'd have
>>pg_hba.conf.sample.in). That strikes me as being a lot cleaner.
>>
>>
>
>Bruce and I talked about that alternative too, but we felt that it made
>more sense to keep the processing of pg_hba.conf.sample parallel to what
>happens to postgresql.conf.sample. Further down the road we might need
>initdb-time checks to decide what to do to the sample file, just as we
>already need for postgresql.conf.sample.
>
>
>
OK, having it comment out the line for the non-ip6 case seems safe
enough. Having it add the line for the ip6 case would be more dangerous
ISTM.
BTW, who if anyone is rewriting initdb in C? I presume we need that for
windows so we are not dependent on having a working shell.
andrew