Re: CIDR in pg_hba.conf
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: CIDR in pg_hba.conf |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 017f01c314c3$3f781b40$6401a8c0@DUNSLANE обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: CIDR in pg_hba.conf ("scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: CIDR in pg_hba.conf
Re: CIDR in pg_hba.conf Re: CIDR in pg_hba.conf |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I would far rather have standard CIDR notation - inventing a new one for Pg doesn't make sense to me. I do not at all understand the objection to a variable number of fields. In fact, we already have them (there's an optional authentication_option on the end). If you don't like this scheme, you can avoid use of CIDR notation (or hostnames) and the pg_hba.conf will work exactly as before. andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: "scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com> To: "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net> Cc: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net>; "PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 1:44 PM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CIDR in pg_hba.conf > On Wed, 7 May 2003, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > > > On Wednesday 07 May 2003 09:50, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > So in hba.c, if we found a / in the IP address, we wouldn't go looking for > > > a separate netmask field. > > > > Is anyone else uncomfortable with variable number of fields? I know there is > > prior art but it still spooks me a little. How about a space after the > > address and before the slash? That way the netmask is in the same field as > > always (as are the following fields) and it's just an alternative syntax. > > If that's the case, then just drop the / from the address and make the > mask field varialble, so if it has .s in it it's a netmask, otherwise it's > a number like a CIDR's second half.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: