Re: 2 forks for md5?

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian  writes:
> > Yea, we could do that, but does it make sense to downgrade the
> > connection message, especially since the "connection authorized" message
> > doesn't contain the hostname.  We would have to add the host name to the
> > "connection authorized" message and at that point there is little need
> > for the "connection received" message.
> 
> The connection-authorized message could be made to carry all the info
> for the normal successful-connection case, but for connection failures
> (not only bad password, but any other startup failure) it isn't going
> to help.  So on reflection I think we'd better keep the
> connection-received message --- else we'd have to add the equivalent
> info to all the failure-case messages.
> 
> I'm coming to agree with Andrew that a documentation patch might be the
> best answer.  But where to put it ... under the description of the
> log_connections GUC var?

I am thinking we should wait for someone else to notice the double log
entries before mentioning it in the docs.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001 +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073