| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: host name support in pg_hba.conf |
| Date: | 2010-10-06 14:11:33 |
| Message-ID: | 4CAC8395.7050008@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/06/2010 09:49 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> That appears to me to be a broken (non RFC compliant) VM setup.
>> However, maybe what this is telling us is we need to expose the setting?
>> Or perhaps better, try 127.0.0.1, ::1, localhost, in that order.
> Yeah, I'd be happier if we exposed it, to be honest. Either that, or
> figure out a way to get rid of it entirely by using a different method,
> but that's a much bigger issue.
Please don't expose it. It will a source of yet more confusion. People
already get confused by the difference between listening addresses and
pg_hba.conf addresses. It's one of the most frequent points of confusion
seen on IRC. Adding another address to configure will just compound the
confusion badly. I much prefer Tom's last suggestion.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-10-06 14:20:47 | Re: Issues with Quorum Commit |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-10-06 14:05:35 | Re: querying the version of libpq |