BUG #16380: documentation: host[no]gssenc vs. address/IP-address/IP-mask fields
BUG #16380: documentation: host[no]gssenc vs. address/IP-address/IP-mask fields
От:
PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
Дата:
The following bug has been logged on the website: Bug reference: 16380 Logged by: Arthur Nascimento Email address: tureba@gmail.com PostgreSQL version: 12.2 Operating system: Documentation Description: Hi, I see a couple of inconsistencies in the documentation of the pg_hba.conf file in v12+: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/auth-pg-hba-conf.html (and /current/) 1. Near the top, there's a line saying "A record can have one of the seven formats", then the followup list shows 9 formats. The ones on host[no]gssenc were added to the IP-address/IP-mask section, but not to the address section. I believe the intention was to have 11 lines there, with a corresponding count at the top. 2. In the address and IP-address/IP-mask descriptions, there's "This field only applies to host, hostssl, and hostnossl records." and "These fields only apply to host, hostssl, and hostnossl records.". But those lists should probably be updated as well to add host[no]gssenc (or to negate the logic, saying they are not applied to local connections). Thanks, Arthur
Re: BUG #16380: documentation: host[no]gssenc vs.address/IP-address/IP-mask fields
От:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Дата:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 06:29:31PM +0000, PG Bug reporting form wrote: > The following bug has been logged on the website: > > Bug reference: 16380 > Logged by: Arthur Nascimento > Email address: tureba@gmail.com > PostgreSQL version: 12.2 > Operating system: Documentation > Description: > > Hi, > > I see a couple of inconsistencies in the documentation of the pg_hba.conf > file in v12+: > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/auth-pg-hba-conf.html (and /current/) > > 1. Near the top, there's a line saying "A record can have one of the seven > formats", then the followup list shows 9 formats. The ones on host[no]gssenc > were added to the IP-address/IP-mask section, but not to the address > section. I believe the intention was to have 11 lines there, with a > corresponding count at the top. > > 2. In the address and IP-address/IP-mask descriptions, there's "This field > only applies to host, hostssl, and hostnossl records." and "These fields > only apply to host, hostssl, and hostnossl records.". But those lists should > probably be updated as well to add host[no]gssenc (or to negate the logic, > saying they are not applied to local connections). I agree with your suggestions. I also noticed that pg_hba.conf is missing gssapi entries too, so I added them to the attached patch. too. -- Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Re: BUG #16380: documentation: host[no]gssenc vs.address/IP-address/IP-mask fields
От:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Дата:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:45:47PM -0300, Arthur Nascimento wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 15:27, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > 1. Near the top, there's a line saying "A record can have one of the seven > > > formats", then the followup list shows 9 formats. The ones on host[no]gssenc > > > were added to the IP-address/IP-mask section, but not to the address > > > section. I believe the intention was to have 11 lines there, with a > > > corresponding count at the top. > ... > > I agree with your suggestions. I also noticed that pg_hba.conf is > > missing gssapi entries too, so I added them to the attached patch. too. > > I thought the list would jump to 11 lines there, meaning 1 local plus > 5 on address plus 5 on IP-address/IP-mask. > As it stands now with 9 lines, it's 1 local plus 3 on address (it's > missing the two on host[no]gssenc) plus 5 on IP-address/IP-mask. Ah, I see. Updated patch attached. -- Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Re: BUG #16380: documentation: host[no]gssenc vs.address/IP-address/IP-mask fields
От:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Дата:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 04:43:19PM -0300, Arthur Nascimento wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 16:08, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Ah, I see. Updated patch attached. > > > > That looks perfect. Thank you! > > Oh, there might be another line to change in the 'address' column. > I see you changed the one under 'IP-address/IP-mask' that starts with > "These fields...". > But there is a similar one under 'address', that starts with "This field...". Agreed, fixed. -- Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Re: BUG #16380: documentation: host[no]gssenc vs.address/IP-address/IP-mask fields
От:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Дата:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 04:14:06PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2020-04-21 21:08, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > - A record can have one of the seven formats > > + A record can have one of the 11 formats > > I think this sort of thing is a sign that the number should be replaced by > "several". Agreed: - A record can have one of the 11 formats + A record can have several formats: -- Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Re: BUG #16380: documentation: host[no]gssenc vs.address/IP-address/IP-mask fields
От:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Дата:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 01:45:57PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 04:14:06PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 2020-04-21 21:08, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > - A record can have one of the seven formats > > > + A record can have one of the 11 formats > > > > I think this sort of thing is a sign that the number should be replaced by > > "several". > > Agreed: > > - A record can have one of the 11 formats > + A record can have several formats: Patch applied through PG 12. -- Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Re: BUG #16380: documentation: host[no]gssenc vs.address/IP-address/IP-mask fields
От:
Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Дата:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 06:29:31PM +0000, PG Bug reporting form wrote: > 1. Near the top, there's a line saying "A record can have one of the seven > formats", then the followup list shows 9 formats. Thanks for pointing it out; it was also mentioned here: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200505104507.GA32455%40gate.oper.dinoex.org So I'd included it it in my "docs" patch to resend someday. -- Justin
Re: BUG #16380: documentation: host[no]gssenc vs.address/IP-address/IP-mask fields
От:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Дата:
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 08:26:47PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 06:29:31PM +0000, PG Bug reporting form wrote: > > 1. Near the top, there's a line saying "A record can have one of the seven > > formats", then the followup list shows 9 formats. > > Thanks for pointing it out; it was also mentioned here: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200505104507.GA32455%40gate.oper.dinoex.org > So I'd included it it in my "docs" patch to resend someday. Yes, that was fixed in my patch. -- Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Re: BUG #16380: documentation: host[no]gssenc vs. address/IP-address/IP-maskfields
От:
Arthur Nascimento <tureba@gmail.com>
Дата:
Hi, On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 22:17, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Agreed, fixed. Looks good to me. Cheers, Tureba - Arthur Nascimento
Re: BUG #16380: documentation: host[no]gssenc vs. address/IP-address/IP-maskfields
От:
Arthur Nascimento <tureba@gmail.com>
Дата:
Hi Bruce, On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 16:08, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Ah, I see. Updated patch attached. That looks perfect. Thank you! Tureba - Arthur Nascimento
Re: BUG #16380: documentation: host[no]gssenc vs. address/IP-address/IP-maskfields
От:
Arthur Nascimento <tureba@gmail.com>
Дата:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 16:08, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Ah, I see. Updated patch attached. > > That looks perfect. Thank you! Oh, there might be another line to change in the 'address' column. I see you changed the one under 'IP-address/IP-mask' that starts with "These fields...". But there is a similar one under 'address', that starts with "This field...". Tureba - Arthur Nascimento
Re: BUG #16380: documentation: host[no]gssenc vs. address/IP-address/IP-maskfields
От:
Arthur Nascimento <tureba@gmail.com>
Дата:
Hi Bruce, On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 15:27, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > 1. Near the top, there's a line saying "A record can have one of the seven > > formats", then the followup list shows 9 formats. The ones on host[no]gssenc > > were added to the IP-address/IP-mask section, but not to the address > > section. I believe the intention was to have 11 lines there, with a > > corresponding count at the top. ... > I agree with your suggestions. I also noticed that pg_hba.conf is > missing gssapi entries too, so I added them to the attached patch. too. I thought the list would jump to 11 lines there, meaning 1 local plus 5 on address plus 5 on IP-address/IP-mask. As it stands now with 9 lines, it's 1 local plus 3 on address (it's missing the two on host[no]gssenc) plus 5 on IP-address/IP-mask. Tureba - Arthur Nascimento
Re: BUG #16380: documentation: host[no]gssenc vs.address/IP-address/IP-mask fields
От:
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Дата:
On 2020-04-21 21:08, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > - A record can have one of the seven formats > + A record can have one of the 11 formats I think this sort of thing is a sign that the number should be replaced by "several". -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
