| From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CIDR in pg_hba.conf |
| Date: | 2003-05-07 17:44:12 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0305071142590.9229-100000@css120.ihs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 7 May 2003, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 May 2003 09:50, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > So in hba.c, if we found a / in the IP address, we wouldn't go looking for
> > a separate netmask field.
>
> Is anyone else uncomfortable with variable number of fields? I know there is
> prior art but it still spooks me a little. How about a space after the
> address and before the slash? That way the netmask is in the same field as
> always (as are the following fields) and it's just an alternative syntax.
If that's the case, then just drop the / from the address and make the
mask field varialble, so if it has .s in it it's a netmask, otherwise it's
a number like a CIDR's second half.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-05-07 17:57:21 | Re: CIDR in pg_hba.conf |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-07 17:28:27 | Re: Protocol V3 question |