Re: libpq port number handling - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kris Jurka
Subject Re: libpq port number handling
Date
Msg-id alpine.BSO.2.00.0909242126100.3560@leary.csoft.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: libpq port number handling  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Tom Lane wrote:

> Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk> writes:
>> +        if (portnum < 1 || portnum > 65535)
>
> BTW, it strikes me that we could tighten this even more by rejecting
> target ports below 1024.

Restricting the target port seems like a bad idea.  What about a firewall
(or ssh tunnel) that did port forwarding.  What PG binds to and what a
client connects to may not be the same thing.

Kris Jurka

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: KaiGai Kohei
Date:
Subject: Re: libpq port number handling
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: libpq port number handling