Bruce Momjian wrote:
>Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
>>Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Agreed, but from a clarity perspective, are we better moving to the CIDR
>>>format for hostnames in pg_hba.conf anyway?
>>>
>>>
>>Possibly --- it'd be easier to sell on that argument anyway ;-)
>>
>>
>>
s/hostnames/netmasks/
+1 vote. They are whole lot easier to understand anyway. We already did
it for the IPv6 addr, and you thought it so nice you put it in the
release notes :-)
>>>Also, I think we would accept a patch that modified pg_hba.conf for
>>>Solaris only that made this change.
>>>
>>>
>>That seems like the worst of all possible worlds. Difficult to do *and*
>>confusing for users, since on Solaris the sample file would no longer
>>match the documentation.
>>
>>
>
>True, but at least it would work. Are they saying the masks don't work
>at all? Why haven't we heard this before?
>
>
>
I thought the report was that *only* 255.255.255.255 failed. The
question is why? And would changing the hints passed to getaddrinfo_all
improve matters (e.g. by filling in the ai_family with the value from
the addr structure we already have)?
cheers
andrew