On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 08:13 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > Thank you very much for the answer.
> > Is there a plan for using sr_check_password in the next release of pgpool
> > 3.1 series?
>
> Yes, it's in my plan. Unless supporting sr_check_password is too
> invasive...
Sorry, but I disagree. E
> On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 08:13 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> > Thank you very much for the answer.
>> > Is there a plan for using sr_check_password in the next release of pgpool
>> > 3.1 series?
>>
>> Yes, it's in my plan. Unless supporting sr_check_password is too
>> invasive...
>
> Sorry, but I
On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 18:31 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 08:13 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> > Thank you very much for the answer.
> >> > Is there a plan for using sr_check_password in the next release of
> >> > pgpool 3.1 series?
> >>
> >> Yes, it's in my plan. Unless s
>>> By enabling "log_connections" you have your client IP and pgpool child
>>> pid in your log. Since the log for "unable parse..." includes pgpool
>>> child pid, you can get client IP by checking pgpool child pid.
>>>
>>> LOG: pid 4327: connection received: host=[local]
>>> LOG: pid 4327: Simp
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
By enabling "log_connections" you have your client IP and pgpool child
pid in your log. Since the log for "unable parse..." includes pgpool
child pid, you can get client IP by checking pgpool child pid.
LOG: pid 4327:
I think this feature is very important, because having trust acces in
pg_hba.conf is not a good idea.
Regards.
De: Guillaume Lelarge [guilla...@lelarge.info]
Enviado el: domingo, 20 de noviembre de 2011 5:40
Para: Tatsuo Ishii
CC: Lazaro Rubén García Marti
On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 17:24 -0430, Lazaro Rubén García Martinez wrote:
> I think this feature is very important, because having trust acces in
> pg_hba.conf is not a good idea.
I understand that and I agree with you. The problem is not on the
feature itself, but on which release it should be del
I am agree with you, but if it is not a bug, what is the purpose for having
sr_sheck_password property in pgpool.conf file?.
I think this property can confuse pgpool's users, for this reason I propose -1.
If you understand that this feature should be present in Pgpool 3.2, I will
agree with you
