I agree with this
-*- Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> [ 2003-05-07 18:27 ]:
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
--
Kveðja,
Tolli
tolli@tol.li