Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At this stage of the game I would just change pg_hba.conf.sample to use
> '127.0.0.1/32' instead of '127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255'.
Yeah, that's probably the path of least resistance. Note that the
comments and possibly the SGML docs need to be adjusted
Added to open items:
* Fix Solaris for single-host netmasks in pg_hba.conf, use CIDR?
---
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>>Seems unlikely
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Seems unlikely. I suppose you could argue that we shouldn't be using
>> getaddrinfo on the netmask field at all; there's certainly not any value
>> in doing a DNS lookup on it, for instance. Maybe we should go back to
>> using plain ol' inet_aton for
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I thought the report was that *only* 255.255.255.255 failed. The
> > question is why?
>
> The impression I got was that some internal subroutine of getaddrinfo
> had a broken error-handling convention (ie, "return a numeric address
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I thought the report was that *only* 255.255.255.255 failed. The
> question is why?
The impression I got was that some internal subroutine of getaddrinfo
had a broken error-handling convention (ie, "return a numeric address
value or -1 on error").
> A
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> True, but at least it would work. Are they saying the masks don't work
> at all? Why haven't we heard this before?
The specific case of mask = all ones has got a problem (and I think
there are some other conditions involved too). We have heard reports
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Agreed, but from a clarity perspective, are we better moving to the CIDR
> > format for hostnames in pg_hba.conf anyway?
>
> Possibly --- it'd be easier to sell on that argument anyway ;-)
>
> > Also, I think we would accept a patch
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Agreed, but from a clarity perspective, are we better moving to the CIDR
> format for hostnames in pg_hba.conf anyway?
Possibly --- it'd be easier to sell on that argument anyway ;-)
> Also, I think we would accept a patch that modified pg_hba.conf for
Tom Lane wrote:
> Oliver Jowett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Since the default config now allows TCP/IP connections from localhost,
> > maybe we should tweak the default pg_hba.conf to work around this
> > problem? (e.g. use the /32 syntax which works ok)
>
> Maybe we should press Sun to fix
Oliver Jowett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since the default config now allows TCP/IP connections from localhost,
> maybe we should tweak the default pg_hba.conf to work around this
> problem? (e.g. use the /32 syntax which works ok)
Maybe we should press Sun to fix their bugs?
Until M$, Solar
8.0.0beta1 tarball built with gcc 3.2.3 under Solaris 9 on a E250
(ultrasparc). I see the same bug as described in
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-admin/2004-05/msg00248.php: a mask
of 255.255.255.255 in pg_hba.conf is rejected with
LOG: invalid IP mask "255.255.255.255" in pg_hba.conf fi
11 matches
Mail list logo
