| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, "J(dot)H(dot)M(dot) Dassen (Ray)" <jdassen(at)cistron-office(dot)nl>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Debian's PostgreSQL packages |
| Date: | 2001-07-11 22:48:08 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0107120046520.679-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Bruce Momjian writes:
> > "J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" wrote:
> > >> and it was never submitted to us a a patch.
> > >
> > >According to the README it was. Oliver, could you comment on this please?
> >
> > It was, a couple of months back. Peter made some criticism of its use of
> > autoconf, which I have changed. I have not resubmitted the patch because
> > the core team seemed to think it was not sufficiently portable. If people
> > want to include it in the main release, I will resubmit a revised patch.
>
> I think our current idea is to have people run local ident servers to
> handle this. We don't have any OS-specific stuff in pg_hba.conf and I
> am not sure if we want to add that complexity. What do others think?
This is not any less "specific" than SSL or Kerberos. Note that opening a
TCP/IP socket already opens a theoretical hole to the world. Unix domain
is much safer.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Phuong Ma | 2001-07-11 22:56:55 | trigger on DELETE |
| Previous Message | GH | 2001-07-11 22:14:48 | Re: Read-only mode |