Guido Barosio escribió:
> Pretty often we face users confusing the listen_addresses param to
> what pg_hba.conf functionality provides.
> ...
> Obviously, a user getting involved with documentation (good rtfm
> person) would make a difference. But seems that in general, the
> wildcard '*' translates into the user mind as "this will represent a
> security hazzard, so I will hardcode my ipaddress", and seriously, *I
> don't know why* this allways fails.
you are right and I apologize, I should have delved deeper into the
documentation, which in fact I read somewhat hastily; but anyway, you
should recognize that this *is* confusing:

(from the postgresql 8.1 documentation:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/s...STEN-ADDRESSES
)
listen_addresses (string)

Specifies the TCP/IP address(es) on which the server is to listen
for connections from client applications. The value takes the form
of a comma-separated list of host names and/or numeric IP addresses.
The special entry * corresponds to all available IP interfaces. If
the list is empty, the server does not listen on any IP interface at
all, in which case only Unix-domain sockets can be used to connect
to it. The default value is localhost, which allows only local
"loopback" connections to be made. This parameter can only be set at
server start.

---
if there were nothing of "hostnames and/or numeric IP addresses", the
line reading "all available IP interfaces" would acquire its full sense
and one might (so I think) notice at a glance the reference to
interfaces; as it implies that you *should* enter hostnames or IP
addresses, one might think it correct to give the interface's IP address
-- which proved wrong, at least in my case.

Obviously this is no excuse for not having taken care of the differences
of postgresql.conf and pg_hba.conf, which I'll try to bear in mind in
future....

Tank you again to all of you,

Bárbara

On 9/7/06, barbara figueirido <barbara@bariloche.com.ar> wrote:

>> Obviously, a user getting involved with documentation (good rtfm
>> person) would make a difference. But seems that in general, the
>> wildcard '*' translates into the user mind as "this will represent a
>> security hazzard, so I will hardcode my ipaddress", and seriously, *I
>> don't know why* this allways fails.
It doesn't always fail, and it does make sense to pin it down to
one interface in a scenario where a machine has a public interface
to the internet as well as local network. I wouldn't want my server/
router/firewall to listen to postgres connections from the wild as
well as on the internal interface.

> Obviously this is no excuse for not having taken care of the differences of
> postgresql.conf and pg_hba.conf, which I'll try to bear in mind in
> future....
Quick question - I haven't seen a single mail of Guido's on the
list; did he respond to you in private, or do we have ourselves
a mail-transport problem?


> Tank you again to all of you,
>
> Bárbara
Cheers,
Andrej

--
Please don't top post, and don't use HTML e-Mail :} Make your quotes concise.

http://www.american.edu/econ/notes/htmlmail.htm

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Andrej Ricnik-Bay escribió:
> Quick question - I haven't seen a single mail of Guido's on the
> list; did he respond to you in private, or do we have ourselves
> a mail-transport problem?
>
It's a good question; Guido helped me in private, but I thought the
message I was answering was directed to the list, since it was in
english; after seeing your question I checked the headers and it wasn't
--which I should have noticed from the fact that I had to insert
manually the list's address.

I thought it was me making some mistake, but from the time I began
posting it stuck me that it was very difficult to respond to some
messages, in fact I remember that when reporting what the problem had
been, I "replied all" to a message sent by Tom Lane and it went only to
his address -- and bounced; I had to repeat the message and insert the
addresses manually -- whereby I also made some mistakes too shameful to
tell....

As already said, I thought I was doing something wrong (I can't happen
to find the first, welcome message to the list), but since you are
asking....

Till some other time,
Bárbara

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match

> Andrej Ricnik-Bay escribió:
> > Quick question - I haven't seen a single mail of Guido's on the
> > list; did he respond to you in private, or do we have ourselves
> > a mail-transport problem?

A day or two ago, there was a DNS problems that affected one or more of the postgresql servers.
There is a thread on the pg-general list about this. Maybe this could have been the cause.

> It's a good question; Guido helped me in private, but I thought the
> message I was answering was directed to the list, since it was in
> english; after seeing your question I checked the headers and it wasn't
> --which I should have noticed from the fact that I had to insert
> manually the list's address.

hmm... I never had that happen to me. If you can reproduce the results I would send an email to
the webmaster@postgresql.org. He will know the correct person/list to forward the email to.

>
> I thought it was me making some mistake, but from the time I began
> posting it stuck me that it was very difficult to respond to some
> messages, in fact I remember that when reporting what the problem had
> been, I "replied all" to a message sent by Tom Lane and it went only to
> his address -- and bounced; I had to repeat the message and insert the
> addresses manually -- whereby I also made some mistakes too shameful to
> tell....
>
> As already said, I thought I was doing something wrong (I can't happen
> to find the first, welcome message to the list), but since you are
> asking....
>
> Till some other time,
> Bárbara


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Richard Broersma Jr escribió:
> A day or two ago, there was a DNS problems that affected one or more of the postgresql servers.
> There is a thread on the pg-general list about this. Maybe this could have been the cause.
>
....
> hmm... I never had that happen to me. If you can reproduce the results I would send an email to
> the webmaster@postgresql.org. He will know the correct person/list to forward the email to.
>
>
It seems that whatever the problem might have been, it's now corrected;
I have tested answering with "reply all" a couple of mails (without
actually sending the messages), and in all cases the list address was
included; only thing is, I have to manually remove then the personal
addresses of any participantes in the thread to prevent them from
receiveing duplicate messages... is there any other way? -- well, this
is actually OT, isn't it?

Bárbara

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

only thing is, I have to manually remove then the personal
> addresses of any participantes in the thread to prevent them from
> receiveing duplicate messages... is there any other way? -- well, this
> is actually OT, isn't it?

Actually, there was a thread on the General List where someone brought up the same issue. The
respondants discussed why it is configured this way. IIRC, the personal address is included to
allow quick reply to individuals as the mail from the list can have significant delays. But it
was up to the "REPLIER" to decide whether on not to delete the personal address and keep the list
address.

Regards,

Richard Broersma Jr.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

--As of September 9, 2006 8:18:32 AM -0700, Richard Broersma Jr is alleged
to have said:

> only thing is, I have to manually remove then the personal
>> addresses of any participantes in the thread to prevent them from
>> receiveing duplicate messages... is there any other way? -- well, this
>> is actually OT, isn't it?
>
> Actually, there was a thread on the General List where someone brought up
> the same issue. The respondants discussed why it is configured this way.
> IIRC, the personal address is included to allow quick reply to
> individuals as the mail from the list can have significant delays. But it
> was up to the "REPLIER" to decide whether on not to delete the personal
> address and keep the list address.

--As for the rest, it is mine.

It's kinda a religious issue, really... I actually set my 'reply-to'
header to the list (when I can, I don't always use the same email client
for this address) so that replies automatically go to the list but not to
me.

There are arguments to be made both ways. Some lists rewrite the headers,
some don't.

We deal.

Daniel T. Staal

---------------------------------------------------------------
This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 17:39:50 -0400,
Daniel Staal <DStaal@usa.net> wrote:
>
> It's kinda a religious issue, really... I actually set my 'reply-to'
> header to the list (when I can, I don't always use the same email client
> for this address) so that replies automatically go to the list but not to
> me.

You can also set mail-followup-to to tell mail clients which addresses
should be used for reply all and still have reply to sender work properly.
However, mail-followup-to isn't as well supported in mail clients as the
reply-to header.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 10:18:01 -0300,
barbara figueirido <barbara@bariloche.com.ar> wrote:
> I have tested answering with "reply all" a couple of mails (without
> actually sending the messages), and in all cases the list address was
> included; only thing is, I have to manually remove then the personal
> addresses of any participantes in the thread to prevent them from
> receiveing duplicate messages... is there any other way? -- well, this
> is actually OT, isn't it?

You shouldn't bother removing the addresses. The senders have ways of telling
your mail client not add them to the list and they can also tell the
mailing list server not to send them a copy if they are cc'd on a message.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend