Re: - what protocol for an Internet postgres

From: "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Network Administrator <netadmin(at)vcsn(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: - what protocol for an Internet postgres
Date: 2003-05-17 16:53:33
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.21.0305171717510.14921-100000@ponder.fairway2k.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sat, 17 May 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Nigel J. Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> > I probably wasn't clear. The rule was a _permit_ from localhost to any remote
> > host/port for something that looked like a core Windows service. I never saw
> > the network traffic (with tcpdump of course) for the port forwarding until I
> > disabled that permit rule, thereby actually tightening the firewall.
>
> [ scratches head... ] That makes no sense at all to me; does it to you?

None what so ever. Is it any surprise I couldn't make it work earlier?

Indeed, having fired things up again so I could say the executable associated
with the rule I find it all working straight away [after starting a ssh session
of course] and that's with the rule automatically enabled after the
reboot. Just fwiw, the executable for the rule is \winnt\system32\services.exe.

I do dislike getting different behaviour out of systems, even if the
different behaviour is the working one.

--
Nigel J. Andrews

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruno Wolff III 2003-05-17 17:43:23 Re: Executing External Programs
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-05-17 16:13:04 Re: disk space usage enlarging despite vacuuming