On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:36:43AM +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2008 11:11 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:03:36AM +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> > > On Jan 29, 2008 9:48 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The client machine(s) that shuold be allowed to connect to the database.
> > >
> > > Is there any need for that? Whats wrong with ssh tunneling?
> >
> > SSH tunneling requires a shell account on the machine.
>
> You just suggested using psql locally, so I assumed that wasn't an
> issue. Regardless, I'd much rather Josh used ssh for everything - it's
> far more flexible, arguably more secure (think ssh cert + postgres
> auth), and doesn't require any special config.
This doesn't really belong on advocacy, so let me just post the reason
here, and take further discussions off-list.
psql locally = locally on his box, *not* wwwmaster, is what I meant.
We don't want end-users running *anything* on wwwmaster. This is the reason
we made it it's own VM. We do *not* want the mess of svr1 all over again.
An option could be to have Josh run his scripts on svr1, since that's the
closest thing to a "shell box" that we have for project users. Yes, it's a
mess, but it works for that :-P
//Magnus