From: | Gerald Quimpo <bopolissimus(dot)lists(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: psql proxy |
Date: | 2008-05-16 22:39:20 |
Message-ID: | 200805171039.21496.bopolissimus.lists@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Friday 16 May 2008 23:34:56 Linsong GUO wrote:
> in the terminal I input psql -h localhost -U bob network
>
> the problem is I do not know how to capture the user name and password
> information in my proxy code.
>
> after read function it is seems nothing in the buf
>
> could you suggest some stand proxy example for me
Martijn pointed you at ssh tunnelling and netcat. You either need
something that ssh tunnelling/netcat CANNOT do for you, or you
don't understand that ssh tunnelling/netcat are sufficient for what
you need to do. It's not clear which of those it is.
Why don't you describe the requirement at a lower level (e.g.,
what are the two computers you've got, what is between the
two computers [is there a firewall, is the other computer on
the other side of the world from you], etc). As it is, your
problem statement is too high level. You're assuming that you
need to write your own proxy. Consider lower level solutions.
Or are you writing a proxy for fun? If so, how is the proxy
supposed to work? you run psql at the local box, it connects
to the proxy, and the proxy passes everything over to the
remote box? ssh/netcat will do that for you. What other
reasons do you have for writing your own proxy? The only
thing I can think of is sniffing the passwords of other users,
but I'm sure there are other interesting things you might be
trying to do.
Gerald
--
Gerald Timothy Quimpo bopolissimus(at)gmail(dot)com
I'm so miserable without you, it's almost like you're here.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kerri Reno | 2008-05-16 23:17:27 | Re: triggers: dynamic references to fields in NEW and OLD? |
Previous Message | Michal Szymanski | 2008-05-16 21:11:05 | Re: Problem with transaction isolation level |