All,
I thought I would through in my 2c into this discussion,
First: Bruce, I believe you said earlier that we don't even fire
up a back end before we reject them. From what I could see from
a strace, the pg_hba.conf file is never open from the postmaster,
so I am not sure how this can be.
I will look more into this later to thuroughly verify this statement.
>
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > But can't we look at pg_hba.conf and find it only 127.0.0.1 is defined
> > to accept connections, and if so, use the -L code automatically.
>
We can
The only thing is that currently the postmaster doensn't open the
pg_hba.conf
file. This was my origional thought as well, Adding a bind option, but
then
I didn't see the code to open the pg_hba.conf file and thougth it
probably
didn't belong there, but maybe it does.
> we could, but, as I asked John for, I'd rather a more generic solution
> that allows me to bind the daemon to IP A, so that I can start up a second
> one on IP B on the same machine ... which becomes great for doing things
> like traffic monitoring, since I can monitor traffic going to database A
> seperately from database B ...
>
I have looked into what the more generic solution, but it is was
somewhat
more complicated, so out of lazieness I took the route that I serrved my
immidiate needs. Besides I figured quite a few people are probobably
using
the JDBC driver which requires the -i option, and would need the same
thing.
> I like John's thought, but think it stops too short, but should be
> relatively easy to extend ...
I would be willing to take a hack at making a more generic version of
this option. I have already given some thought in my head as to what
it would take. It will probably take a week or 2 to get it done,
with the time constraints I currently have.
Thanks,
John C. Quillan
