On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:21, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >> However, wouldn't it make more logical sense to replace "host/hostssl" >> with "replication/replicationssl" rather than overload the database >> field? > > Seems good. How about the following formats? > > replication user CIDR-address auth-method [auth-options] > replicationssl user CIDR-address auth-method [auth-options] > replication user IP-address IP-mask auth-method [auth-options] > replicationssl user IP-address IP-mask auth-method [auth-options] > > Note that "database" field has been removed since it's useless > for replication.
Hm, no, I think I withdraw my comment about pg_hba.conf. It seems better to overload the database name here. I'm not particularly keen on yet another different set of columns, which is what happens when you remove the database field. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
