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
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 |