Re: TCP/IP with 7.4 beta2 broken?
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: TCP/IP with 7.4 beta2 broken? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3F5633DE.5000908@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: TCP/IP with 7.4 beta2 broken? (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote: >Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > >>We currently have this in the default pg_hba.conf file: >> >> host all all 127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 trust >> >>The idea was to have something which would perform equivalently on IP4 >>only, IP4 over IP6 and pure IP6 connections, without breaking the >>postmaster host in any of them. >> >>It is perfectly true that it could be mangled by the administrator - >>this would save him/her having to do so for the default case. In my >>proposal you would replace this default line with: >> >> loopback all all trust >> >>It's the fact that it is the default that makes it special. Does that >>make things clearer? >> >> > >We have avoided doing dns lookups from pg_hba.conf, and hence the use of >127.0.0.1 instead of localhost. Now that we cache pg_hba.conf, we could >consider allowing hostnames in pg_hba.conf. Is that a TODO? > >As for the IPv6 issue --- how prevalent is this problem. What OS >versions are affected? Has the user done something special to enable >this? > > > These are orthogonal issues. What I have suggested above would work purely at the address level, without any name lookup. Systems (e.g. SUSE) are shipping with IP6 turned on by default - that's how this came up in the first place. DNS lookups were discussed back in May, but there didn't seem to be a nice way to do it in conjunction with netmasks, so I didn't proceed with it after I did CIDR masks. If someone can suggest good semantics and there is demand for it I can look at it again (or someone else can). cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: