Re: BUG #16380: documentation: host[no]gssenc vs.address/IP-address/IP-mask fields
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #16380: documentation: host[no]gssenc vs.address/IP-address/IP-mask fields |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20200421190822.GJ19613@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #16380: documentation: host[no]gssenc vs. address/IP-address/IP-maskfields (Arthur Nascimento <tureba@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #16380: documentation: host[no]gssenc vs. address/IP-address/IP-maskfields
Re: BUG #16380: documentation: host[no]gssenc vs.address/IP-address/IP-mask fields |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:45:47PM -0300, Arthur Nascimento wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 15:27, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > > 1. Near the top, there's a line saying "A record can have one of the seven > > > formats", then the followup list shows 9 formats. The ones on host[no]gssenc > > > were added to the IP-address/IP-mask section, but not to the address > > > section. I believe the intention was to have 11 lines there, with a > > > corresponding count at the top. > ... > > I agree with your suggestions. I also noticed that pg_hba.conf is > > missing gssapi entries too, so I added them to the attached patch. too. > > I thought the list would jump to 11 lines there, meaning 1 local plus > 5 on address plus 5 on IP-address/IP-mask. > As it stands now with 9 lines, it's 1 local plus 3 on address (it's > missing the two on host[no]gssenc) plus 5 on IP-address/IP-mask. Ah, I see. Updated patch attached. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Вложения
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: