From: | Yury Bokhoncovich <byg(at)center-f1(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Dan Ostrowski <dan(at)triad-dev(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk>, dan radom <dan(at)radom(dot)org>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Different Port for PostgreSQL? |
Date: | 2002-09-24 14:50:30 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0209242147240.26040-100000@panda.center-f1.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hello!
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Dan Ostrowski wrote:
> Yes, and I replied to him. I will try to pump them to get the extra firewall
> machine, but I am not sure if they will go for it. running PostgreSQL on
> the firewall machine is NOT my preferred measure for sure.
>
> But yes, that was a silly question to ask in retrospect. I will just pipe
> ONLY source IPs from the webhost to the DB. Easily done. Sorry. Sometimes
> you get a brain lock and you have to ask a dumb question to realize what you
> are thinking of wrong.
BTW, there's a cool trick: make use UNIX socket, turn off TCP port at all.
This solution is quite good for those popular solution "all-in-one" where
httpd and DBMS will reside on the same computer and has faster
performance (proven). Drawback: you cannot do pg_dump.
--
WBR, Yury Bokhoncovich, Senior System Administrator, NOC of F1 Group.
Phone: +7 (3832) 106228, ext.140, E-mail: byg(at)center-f1(dot)ru(dot)
Unix is like a wigwam -- no Gates, no Windows, and an Apache inside.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Roland Roberts | 2002-09-24 14:55:41 | Re: [SQL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
Previous Message | Ben Roberts | 2002-09-24 14:49:48 | problem with maintenance script and missing pg_clog files with pg 7.2.1 |