[ADMIN] Missing or errooneous pg_hba.conf file

2004-05-19 Thread Bill Chandler
Hello, Running 7.4.2 on Solaris 8 (binaries were built on a different Solaris 8 box). I keep getting the following message when trying to connect to server: FATAL: missing or erroneous pg_hba.conf file HINT: see server log for details. Server log contains message: LOG: invalid entry in pg_hba.

Re: [ADMIN] Missing or errooneous pg_hba.conf file

2004-05-19 Thread Tom Lane
Bill Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > LOG: invalid entry in pg_hba.conf file at line 60, > token "255.255.255.255" > I have found that if I change this value to anything > other than "255.255.255.255" (e.g. "255.255.255.254") > the message goes away. Bizarre. AFAICS this must indicate th

Re: [ADMIN] Missing or errooneous pg_hba.conf file

2004-05-19 Thread Christopher Browne
After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) belched out: > Bill Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> LOG: invalid entry in pg_hba.conf file at line 60, >> token "255.255.255.255" > >> I have found that if I change this value to anything >> other than "255.255.255.255"

Re: [ADMIN] Missing or errooneous pg_hba.conf file

2004-05-19 Thread Tom Lane
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) belched out: >> Bill Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Interestingly the same 7.4.1 binary running on a different machine did >>> not exhibit the problem. Could it be a So

Re: [ADMIN] Missing or errooneous pg_hba.conf file

2004-05-20 Thread Bill Chandler
I am in the process of having the Solaris 8 machine upgrading w/ latest patches. I will let you know if it fixes the problem. Thanks. Bill --- Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bill Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > LOG: invalid entry in pg_hba.conf file at line 60, > > token "255.25

Re: [ADMIN] Missing or errooneous pg_hba.conf file

2004-05-24 Thread Bill Chandler
Hi all, I had my Solaris 8 machine upgraded with latest patches. No change. Still does not like 255.255.255.255. Using the alternate format of IP-address/32 does fix the problem, though so glad to have a workaround. Still it would be nice to know why this happens on some systems and not on oth