Re: CIDR in pg_hba.conf
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: CIDR in pg_hba.conf |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 016901c314c2$1c0f94e0$6401a8c0@DUNSLANE обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | CIDR in pg_hba.conf ("Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: CIDR in pg_hba.conf
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I'm feeling ambitious ;-) Seriously, I think this would be very worthwhile - I hate having to remember IP addresses. It would all be done by now except that I have to handle the IPv6 stuff (thanks god for edition 2 of Stevens). andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: "Larry Rosenman" <ler@lerctr.org> Cc: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net>; "PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 12:29 PM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CIDR in pg_hba.conf > Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> writes: > > --On Wednesday, May 07, 2003 09:50:55 -0400 Andrew Dunstan > >> So in hba.c, if we found a / in the IP address, we wouldn't go looking > >> for a separate netmask field. > > > Please do this ! > > It works for me. One thought though: someday someone might want to get > around to allowing a DNS name in the host field, too. Can we define a > test that handles all three cases? Perhaps do this: > > * If IP address contains only 0-9 and dot (easily coded with strspn()), > then it's old-style IP address; expect netmask as next field. > > * If IP address contains only 0-9, dot, and slash, then it's CIDR; > there's no separate netmask field. > > * Otherwise IP address is a DNS name; there's no separate netmask. > (This case can error out for now, unless you're feeling ambitious.) > > regards, tom lane > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: