Re: Why don't we allow DNS names in pg_hba.conf?

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Jan 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> I was reminded of $subject by
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-admin/2006-01/msg00002.php
>>
>> While I haven't tried it, I suspect that allowing a DNS host name
>> would take little work (basically removing the AI_NUMERICHOST flag
>> passed to getaddrinfo in hba.c).  There was once a good reason not
>> to allow it: slow DNS lookups would lock up the postmaster.  But
>> now that we do this work in an already-forked backend, with an overall
>> timeout that would catch any indefinite blockage, I don't see a good
>> reason why we shouldn't let people use DNS names.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
>
> Security?


I'd bet most pg_hba.conf entries will be (private) networks, not hosts. 
Since private networks defined in DNS are probably quite rare, only few 
people could benefit.

Those who *do* define specific host entries, are probably quite security 
aware. They might find DNS safe for their purposes, but they'd probably 
like a function that shows the resulting hba entries after DNS resolution.

Routers/firewalls that allow DNS names will usually resolve them 
immediately, and store the IP addresses.

Regards,
Andreas