Re: Brokenness in parsing of pg_hba.conf

On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:38:44PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

> AFAICS, Alex is quite far out in left field to believe that this is a
> standard notation. The fact that some BSD platforms have accepted it

How did I know you'd say that, Tom?

By "standard," I mean, "many people use it." Not, "some standard is
defined." For me, the manpage is enough. Additionally, the fact that I
(and you) can ping 127.1 on our (your) machine is enough for me. Go on,
try it.

> does not make it standard, especially not when Vixie's research shows
> that there is no RFC to legitimize it. (Personally I never heard of

Vixie is known for being slightly ... irritable. If he encounters something
he doesn't like, his first response is "oh, that's stupid." It seems strange
that Linux, BSD, and Solaris (I can investigate IRIX and OSF1 tomorrow) all
support it if it is either incorrect or nonstandard. We're not talking about
just BSD here.

> > 4. My personal preference would be that if any change is made it would
> > be to insist on an unabbreviated dotted quad for ip4.
>
> I can't get excited about replacing or second-guessing the platform's
> getaddrinfo() or inet_aton() implementation. If you don't like how

Given on both Solaris (my database server) and OpenBSD (the machine from
which that manpage came from) I can connect to 127.1, I think you must
be mistaken here. What made you think that it isn't supported?

> those library routines behave, forward your bug report appropriately
> --- but it's not Postgres' problem.

There isn't any point in filing a bug if it will be ignored.

alex

--
alex(at)posixnap(dot)net
Alex J. Avriette, Unix Systems Gladiator
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto