* Andrew Dunstan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Before we rehearse the discussion we had in June again, please review > it. It ended on these sensible words from Tom at > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-02/msg00550.php :
I'd have to disagree with this sentiment and agree with Gregory's followup here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-02/msg00553.php > >> Personally, I doubt there's any great use case for DNS names. Like Tom > >> says, if it involves much more that removing the AI_NUMERICHOST hint > >> then let's forget it. > > > >Perhaps more to the point: let's do that and wait to see if the field > >demand justifies expending lots of sweat on anything smarter. Given > >that we've gone this long with only allowing numeric IPs in pg_hba.conf, > >I suspect we'll find that few people really care. I don't see that this argument really makes all that much sense- not doing it properly and then waiting to see if people use it isn't exactly how I'd go about finding out if people want it. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
