Tom Lane wrote:
> Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> writes:
> > are you sure it's not just for beauty's sake?
>
> What I didn't like about your last patch was the close coupling of the
> CIDR/netmask processing to the v4-to-v6 conversion; as Andrew pointed
> out, you were hacking into hba.c functionality that overlapped with
> SockAddr_cidr_mask. Doing the conversion after we've collected the
> netmask seems a lot cleaner to me. Also, this way keeps a fairly decent
> separation of interests between hba.c (parsing the hba.conf syntax) and
> ip.c (messing with address representations).
>
> > While talking about beauty: that setting of *cidr_slash to '/' and 0
> > doesn't look too esthetic...
>
> It is ugly (and I didn't write it ;-)). But if we palloc'd a modified
> version of the token we'd have to remember to pfree it, so it nets out
> to about the same amount of code either way I think. If you wanna try
> to clean it up more, be my guest ...
Would you like me to conditionally add the IPv6 line to pg_hba.conf from
initdb now?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
