I do not know why the others has "USER" at pg_hba.conf. Maybe your
version is 7.3. Mine is 7.2.
Thanks for your suggestion but it have not worked. The mask I use is
from my local network, and all the stations is with the same mask.
I restarted the server many times using pg_ctl restart or stop
Sorry to bother the list, can someone point me to the unsubscribe information?
Thanks
Erich
THINK
Püntenstrasse 39
8143 Stallikon
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Fingerprint: BC9A 25BC 3954 3BC8 C024 8D8A B7D4 FF9D 05B8 0A16
---(end of broadcast)---
I'm not a TCP/IP networking expert, but I'm pretty certain that 10.x.x.x addresses are
the very definition of a private non-routable Class A network. Which means the subnet
mask should be 255.0.0.0.
255.255.255.0 is the mask for Class C networks, which for private networks are
generally def
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 11:00, Roman Fail wrote:
> I'm not a TCP/IP networking expert, but I'm pretty certain that 10.x.x.x
> addresses are the very definition of a private non-routable Class A
> network. Which means the subnet mask should be 255.0.0.0.
> 255.255.255.0 is the mask for Class C
Many thanks for everybody.
I realize that postgresql assume the mask 255.255.255.0 as an external
net. So I put "host" and it is working great now. Dave is correct.
All the information about the mask provided by you guys is relevant and
correct. I found out that the postgres assume the masks in
Well, it was I who noted the bug in PostgreSQL, and yes, I have all numeric
people in the database...
downloaded and installed the tarball... all seems to work properly now...
could edit the group properties at least...
funny how such a thing can affect the system... *gets all philosophic*
Mich
> -Original Message-
> From: Roman Fail [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 March 2003 16:01
> To: Fabiano; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-support] No entry to pg_hba.conf 10.17.11.16
>
>
> I'm not a TCP/IP networking expert, but I'm pretty certain
> that 10.x.x.x addresse
