Re: [HACKERS] pg_hba_file_settings view patch

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Haribabu Kommi
<kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> * I'm not exactly convinced that the way you approached the error message
>> reporting, ie duplicating the logged message, is good.  In particular
>> this results in localizing the strings reported in pg_hba_rules.error,
>> which is exactly opposite to the decision we reached for the
>> pg_file_settings view.  What's the reasoning for deciding that this
>> view should contain localized strings?  (More generally, we found in
>> the pg_file_settings view that we didn't always want to use exactly
>> the same string that was logged, anyway.)
>
> Actually there is no particular reason to display the localized strings,
> Just thought that it may be useful to the user if it get displayed in their
> own language. And also doing this way will reduce the error message
> duplicate in the code that is used for display in the view and writing it
> into the log file.

Perhaps consistency would not hurt and something like
record_config_file_error() could be done to save the error parsing
error. What's actually the problem with localized strings exposed in a
system view? Encoding conflicts?

>> * Also, there seems to be a lot of ereports remaining unconverted,
>> eg the "authentication file token too long" error.  One of the things
>> we wanted pg_file_settings to be able to do was finger pretty much any
>> mistake in the config file, including syntax errors.  It seems like
>> it'd be a shame if pg_hba_rules is unable to help with that.  You
>> should be able to fill in line number and error even if the line is
>> too mangled to be able to populate the other fields sanely.
>
> The two errors that are missed are, "could not open secondary authentication
> file"
> and "authentication file token too long" errors. For these two cases, the
> server
> is not throwing any error, it just logs the message and continues. Is it
> fine to add
> these these two cases as errors in the view?

Missed those ones during the initial review... It would be a good idea
to include them to track problems.