Re: Ticket 298: bug on pg_hba.conf editor
От | Dave Page |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Ticket 298: bug on pg_hba.conf editor |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+OCxowbY0X8_Lo_82STedosSjL4MiVDJv6QG15e3b13-uQoOA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Ticket 298: bug on pg_hba.conf editor (Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info>) |
Ответы |
Re: Ticket 298: bug on pg_hba.conf editor
|
Список | pgadmin-hackers |
On Saturday, July 16, 2011, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: > On Sat, 2011-07-16 at 21:11 +0100, Dave Page wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Guillaume Lelarge >> <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I worked a bit this morning on this bug. The editor was made in a way >> > that invalid configuration lines are not displayed which is wrong >> > because you can't fix a line if you stored it wrong once. >> > >> > So I did the change to allow the change of an invalid configuration >> > line, and that works well. >> > >> > But I now have many other lines that aren't supposed to appear: >> > >> > # local DATABASE USER METHOD [OPTIONS] >> > # host DATABASE USER ADDRESS METHOD [OPTIONS] >> > # hostssl DATABASE USER ADDRESS METHOD [OPTIONS] >> > # hostnossl DATABASE USER ADDRESS METHOD [OPTIONS] >> > # host name, or it is >> > >> > All are considered comments, and all have a valid first column, so all >> > are displayed. Which is a bit disturbing because they are part of the >> > comments in pg_hba.conf, they are not supposed to be "actual" lines. >> > >> > So, they match our process of identifiying lines, and so they are >> > displayed. Do you have any idea how we could not display these? I mean, >> > I can simply add a check on the line string to see if they are equal to >> > the one of the five strings above, but it seems quite a ugly hack. >> >> Why don't we just ignore anything that starts with a # ? >> > > Because we need to guess which comment is an actual comment and which > comment is a disabled configuration. That allows us to hide actual > comments, and show disabled configuration. Problem is that our guess is > wrong sometimes. Sounds like you're trying to be too clever. We don't normally care about commented lines in configuration files. If you really want to do so tough, check if a token is wrapped in [ ] - that never happen in a valid configuration I don't believe. >> > Or do we simply choose to not care? we prefer to have the bugfix even if >> > it means to show some not "actual" config lines? >> >> Not those. >> > > I don't get it, sorry :) > > What do you mean by "not those"? We don't want to show those lines. >> > Another related question: peer, radius are not available in the method. >> > As we are in beta, I won't add them to 1.14 branch, will I? >> >> I would consider their omission to be a bug. >> > > Hmmm, OK. Will fix then. Thanks. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgadmin-hackers по дате отправления: