Re: No pg_hba.conf entry for host localhost (was: Re:

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: ogjunk-pg(at)yahoo(dot)com
Cc: PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: No pg_hba.conf entry for host localhost (was: Re:
Date: 2004-03-24 15:17:52
Message-ID: 17434.1080141472@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> El Mi 24 Mar 2004 10:25, ogjunk-pg(at)yahoo(dot)com escribi:
>> But still.... is this considered secure?

Why would you think it's any less secure than your localhost (TCP)
entry?

It's fairly easy to configure a Unix-domain socket to be *more* secure
than TCP, because you can use file permissions to limit which other
users can even connect to it. A lot of paranoid admins use only Unix
socket connections and don't even enable the postmaster to listen on
TCP. I don't know of anyone who considers TCP more secure than local.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Frank Wiles 2004-03-24 15:29:09 Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)
Previous Message Martin Marques 2004-03-24 14:30:43 Re: No pg_hba.conf entry for host localhost (was: Re: