On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:17:34PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> It might be that (as suggested downthread) we should consider >> supporting multiple IPs in the hostaddr string as well, but that >> requires some thought. For example, what happens if, for example, the >> host and hostaddr lists are of unequal length? Would we accept one >> host and >1 hostaddrs? Probably makes sense to just apply the host to >> every hostaddr. >1 host and 1 hostaddr? Probably doesn't make sense, >> but I guess you could argue for it. Equal length lists definitely >> make sense. > > That would make the current code a huge plate of spagetthi for sanity > checks considering the multiple interations between port, host and > hostaddr. It seems to me that the current approach of supporting only > port and host is simple enough and will satisfy most of the user's > need plently. So +1 for simplicity.
I don't think it'd be ridiculously complicated to make it work and I don't mind if someone wants to try. However, it wasn't interesting to me, so I didn't spend time on it. A lot of these parameters are intertwined, and I wanted to avoid trying to boil the ocean. But I'm not allergic to follow-on patches. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
