Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> > What's wrong with something like "connection not permitted" or
>> > "connection not authorized"?
>>
>> The case that we're trying to cater to with the existing wording is
>> novice DBAs, who are likely to stare at such a message and not even
>> realize that pg_hba.conf is what they need to change.  Frankly, by
>> the time anyone is using REJECT entries they are probably advanced
>> enough to not need much help from the error message; but what you
>> propose is an absolute lock to increase the number of newbie questions
>> on the lists by a large factor.
>
> Agreed.  I would rather have an inaccurate error message that mentions
> pg_hba.conf than an accurate one that doesn't.
>
> Error messages should always point at a solution, if possible.

OK, how about "connection not authorized by pg_hba.conf"?

...Robert