| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_hba.conf.sample wording improvement |
| Date: | 2021-04-28 14:30:27 |
| Message-ID: | 2797148.1619620227@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Looking at it now, I wonder how well do the "hostno" options work. If I
> say "hostnogssenc", is an SSL-encrypted socket good? If I say
> "hostnossl", is a GSS-encrypted socket good? If so, how does that make
> sense?
Kind of off-topic for this thread, but I wonder if we should introduce
"hostenc" and "hostnoenc" to mean "encrypted (or not), and I don't care
by which method". The addition of GSS has made it painful to express
those concepts.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-04-28 15:09:15 | Re: pg_upgrade fails to detect unsupported arrays and ranges |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-04-28 14:26:07 | Re: Skip temporary table schema name from explain-verbose output. |