Received: from gromit.dotclick.com (ipn9-f8366.net-resource.net
	[216.204.83.66])
	by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5DH7GE07826
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:07:16 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from markw@mohawksoft.com)
Received: from mohawksoft.com (IDENT:markw@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by gromit.dotclick.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23443;
	Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:07:04 -0400
Message-ID: <3B279DB8.E8CB5657@mohawksoft.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:07:04 -0400
From: mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
CC: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Re: Improving pg_hba.conf
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0106131739450.756-100000@peter.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archive-Number: 200106/393
X-Sequence-Number: 10014

Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> mlw writes:
>
> > Why doesn't postgres put the contents pg_hba.conf in a table? That way it comes
> > for free when you reinitialize and restore a database?
>
> Because if you hosed that table you would have hosed your entire
> installation.
>

You could use a bki script to fix the problem in stand alone mode if need be. I
don't think breaking this table is really an issue. My only concerns would be the
chicken vs egg problem connecting to the system, and security. Assuming these issues
could be resolved, I think having this info in a table would be beneficial for
maintenance.