On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Stef Walter <stef-l...@memberwebs.com> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Stef Walter <stef-l...@memberwebs.com> writes: >>> Allowing host names in pg_hba.conf would also solve this problem, >>> although the last person who tried to implement this it was a topic of >>> contention. I asked if I should focus on reverse DNS host names in >>> pg_hba.conf or portability for this samenet patch, and it was indicated >>> that I should do the latter. >> >> Agreed, a DNS-based solution would be a huge pain in the rear to do >> correctly. However, I think what Robert wanted to know was just how >> portable you believe this solution is. If it doesn't work, and work >> pretty much the same, on all our supported platforms then I'm afraid >> we can't use it. > > It does work the same on the platforms noted earlier. After work today, > I'll put time into making sure that the winsock build problem noted > earlier is sorted out.
Rereading the thread, it seems that the main question is whether there are any platforms that we support that have neither getifaddrs or SIOCGIFCONF, or where they don't work properly. By the way, in foreach_ifaddr_ifconf, what happens if the number of addresses is too large to fit in the arbitrary-size buffer you've chosen here? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
