Re: pg_hba.conf hostname todo

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_hba.conf hostname todo
Date: 2006-12-27 22:27:00
Message-ID: 20061227222700.GO24675@kenobi.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Andrew Dunstan (andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net) wrote:
> Before we rehearse the discussion we had in June again, please review
> it. It ended on these sensible words from Tom at
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-02/msg00550.php :

I'd have to disagree with this sentiment and agree with Gregory's
followup here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-02/msg00553.php

> >> Personally, I doubt there's any great use case for DNS names. Like Tom
> >> says, if it involves much more that removing the AI_NUMERICHOST hint
> >> then let's forget it.
> >
> >Perhaps more to the point: let's do that and wait to see if the field
> >demand justifies expending lots of sweat on anything smarter. Given
> >that we've gone this long with only allowing numeric IPs in pg_hba.conf,
> >I suspect we'll find that few people really care.

I don't see that this argument really makes all that much sense- not
doing it properly and then waiting to see if people use it isn't exactly
how I'd go about finding out if people want it.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Ribe 2006-12-27 22:35:24 Re: Autovacuum Improvements
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-12-27 22:26:45 Re: Load distributed checkpoint