From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Postgresql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Brokenness in parsing of pg_hba.conf |
Date: | 2004-01-07 17:42:31 |
Message-ID: | 3FFC4507.4010300@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark wrote:
>"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>
>>Second, you state that this usage is valid. When you first raised the
>>matter, you were so certain that it was sanctified by standard that you
>>asked me if I would implement it if you could quote an RFC sanctifying it
>>(I said yes) and went off to find one. To your surprise, you couldn't, and
>>now want to say that "valid" is defined for every OS in every context by
>>the man page for one library call on one OS (or possibly several).
>>
>>
>
>Would the POSIX/IEEE/SuS be authoritative enough?
>
>
>
Enough for me, yes, no matter how crazy I think it is ;-)
But as you seem to imply it still looks like Not Our Problem (tm).
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-01-07 17:42:52 | Re: Paypal WAS: PostgreSQL speakers needed for OSCON |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-01-07 17:30:02 | Re: Bug in new buffer freelist code |