Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: CIDR address in pg_hba.conf

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CIDR address in pg_hba.conf
Date: 2011-06-10 00:42:10
Message-ID: 201106100042.p5A0gAw27314@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs
Tom Lane wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/auth-pg-hba-conf.html
> >> An IP address is specified in standard dotted decimal notation with
> >> a CIDR mask length. The mask length indicates the number of
> >> high-order bits of the client IP address that must match. Bits to the
> >> right of this must be zero in the given IP address.
> 
> > Is the last statement correct? When I specified the following setting
> > in pg_hba.conf, I could not find any problem in PostgreSQL.
> 
> >     host  all  all  192.168.1.99/24  trust
> 
> > As far as I read the code, those bits seem not to need to be zero.
> > Attached patch just removes that statement.
> 
> Even if it happens to work that way at the moment, do we want to
> encourage people to depend on such an implementation artifact?
> 
> IOW, if you read "must" as "if you want to trust it to work in future
> versions, you must", the advice is perfectly sound.

Should we use "should"?

> >> right of this should be zero in the given IP address.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Responses

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Thom BrownDate: 2011-06-12 21:08:05
Subject: Re: Documentation and explanatory diagrams
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2011-06-09 22:48:47
Subject: Re: ECPG, sentence not complete

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group