Re: No pg_hba.conf entry for host localhost (was: Re: - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: No pg_hba.conf entry for host localhost (was: Re:
Date
Msg-id 17434.1080141472@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: No pg_hba.conf entry for host localhost (was: Re:  (Martin Marques <martin@bugs.unl.edu.ar>)
List pgsql-general
> El Mi� 24 Mar 2004 10:25, ogjunk-pg@yahoo.com escribi�:
>> But still.... is this considered secure?

Why would you think it's any less secure than your localhost (TCP)
entry?

It's fairly easy to configure a Unix-domain socket to be *more* secure
than TCP, because you can use file permissions to limit which other
users can even connect to it.  A lot of paranoid admins use only Unix
socket connections and don't even enable the postmaster to listen on
TCP.  I don't know of anyone who considers TCP more secure than local.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Martin Marques
Date:
Subject: Re: No pg_hba.conf entry for host localhost (was: Re:
Next
From: "scott.marlowe"
Date:
Subject: Re: partial VACUUM FULL