|From:||Lou Picciano <LouPicciano(at)comcast(dot)net>|
|To:||Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Timmy Siu <timmy(dot)siu(at)aol(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: TCP Wrappers|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Yeah, why bother. Even ’native’ encryption/SSL in PG (were one to use it ‘natively’, as we do) is so good; adding yet another layer seems overkill…
> On Oct 9, 2019, at 6:39 PM, Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 12:56 PM Timmy Siu <timmy(dot)siu(at)aol(dot)com <mailto:timmy(dot)siu(at)aol(dot)com>> wrote:
> Dear all postgresql developers,
> I have tested postgres v11 against TCP Wrappers but it does not respond
> to TCP wrappers port blocking.
> May I suggest the community to have postgres to work with TCP wrappers.??
> Its security will be better.
> The last stable release of TCP Wrappers was a couple decades ago. It's deprecated in RHEL7 and removed in RHEL8. I'm not a PG core member or anything but rather doubt that's an area where the developers will want to expend effort.
|Next Message||Smith, Peter||2019-10-09 22:52:41||RE: Proposal: Add more compile-time asserts to expose inconsistencies.|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2019-10-09 22:46:38||Re: pg_dump compatibility level / use create view instead of create table/rule|