On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:59 AM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021, at 8:01 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Before fix
> ERROR: could not connect to the publisher: connection to server at
> "localhost" (::1), port 5432 failed: FATAL: pg_hba.conf rejects
> replication connection for host "::1", user "KapilaAm", no encryption
>
> After fix error:
> ERROR: could not connect to the publisher: connection to server at
> "localhost" (::1), port 5432 failed: FATAL: pg_hba.conf rejects
> connection for host "::1", user "KapilaAm", database "postgres", no
> encryption
> DETAIL: Logical replication connections do not match pg_hba.conf
> rules using the "replication" keyword.
>
> The new message is certainly an improvement because it provides an additional
> component (database name) that could be used to figure out what's wrong with
> the logical replication connection. However, I wouldn't like to add a DETAIL
> message for something that could be easily inspected in the pg_hba.conf. The
> old message leaves a doubt about which rule was used (absence of database name)
> but the new message makes this very clear. IMO with this new message, we don't
> need a DETAIL message.
>
You have a point. Paul, do you have any thoughts on this?
> If in doubt, user can always read that documentation
> (the new sentence clarifies the "replication" usage for logical replication
> connections).
>
> Regarding the documentation, I think the new sentence a bit confusing. The
> modified sentence is providing detailed information about "replication" in the
> database field then you start mentioned "replication=database". Even though it
> is related to the connection string, it could confuse the reader for a second.
> I would say "it does not match logical replication connections". It seems
> sufficient to inform the reader that he/she cannot use records with
> "replication" to match logical replication connections.
>
Fair point.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.