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
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Thom Brown||Date: 2011-06-12 21:08:05|
|Subject: Re: Documentation and explanatory diagrams|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2011-06-09 22:48:47|
|Subject: Re: ECPG, sentence not complete|