h people to stick
> >> around, we should try to give their ideas a fair shake.
> >>
> > I share the same feeling. I wasn't trying to throw a cold water on it.
>
> OK, I felt like that's what you were doing. Sorry if I
> misinterpreted, and thank
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On 15-10-2015 05:41, kolo hhmow wrote:
>
>> I have already explained this in my previous post. Did you read this?
>>
> >
> Yes, I do.
>
> So why postgresql give users an abbility to use a pam modules, when
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On 14-10-2015 17:35, kolo hhmow wrote:
>
>> Yes, but this is very ugly solution, becasue you have to restart
>> postgresql daemon each time you have added a new user.
>>
> >
> Restart != Reload. You can even
for example.
So I'm waiting for comments from others.
Thanks.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:12 PM, kolo hhmow wrote:
> > Yes, sorry. I was in hurry when I posted this message.
> > I dont understand whay in CheckPAMAuth functio
PM, kolo hhmow wrote:
> > Yes, sorry. I was in hurry when I posted this message.
> > I dont understand whay in CheckPAMAuth function only PAM_USER item is
> adding
> > to pam information before authenticate?
> > Wheter it would be a problem to set additional pam informati
ue, Oct 13, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:01 PM, kolo hhmow wrote:
> > Wheter it would be a problem to set additional item (rhost) before
> > pam_authentication function in backend/libpq/auth.c?
> > It is very useful because you can rest
Wheter it would be a problem to set additional item (rhost) before
pam_authentication function in backend/libpq/auth.c?
It is very useful because you can restrict access to given ip address like
in mysql.
And this actually utilized in pam-pgsql, wich cannot be used because rhost
item is empty.
Tha
