On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 7:08 AM Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On 28.04.21 16:09, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Looking at it now, I wonder how well do the "hostno" options work. If I
> > say "hostnogssenc", is an SSL-encrypted socket good? If I say
> > "hostnossl", is a GSS-encrypted socket good? If so, how does that make
> > sense?
>
> I think for example if you want to enforce SSL connections, then writing
> "hostnossl ... reject" would be sensible. That would also reject
> GSS-encrypted connections, but that would be what you want in that scenario.
I'd say the interface has become a lot less well-matching now that we
have two separate settings for it. For example right now it's more
complex to say "reject anything not encrypted", which I bet is what a
lot of people would want. They don't particularly care if it's gss
encrypted or ssl encrypted.
Perhaps what we want to do (obviously not for 14) is to allow you to
specify more than one entry in the first column, so you could say
"hostssl,hostgssenc" on the same row? That would give some strange
results with the "no" mappings, but it might work if used right?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
