Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [206.210.65.6])
	by hub.org (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA15466
	for <pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org>;
	Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:02:12 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA20422;
	Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:01:40 -0500 (EST)
To: Bob VonMoss <bvonmoss@bigfoot.com>
cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] connecting: unix socket? Yes. TCPIP port? No. -i?
	Yes.
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 05 Feb 1999 21:44:16 -0600
	<36BBBA90.67C72C26@bigfoot.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 14:01:39 -0500
Message-ID: <20420.918327699@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Bob VonMoss <bvonmoss@bigfoot.com> writes:
> [ can connect via unix socket, but not via TCP ]

> The administrator says this is how postmaster is invoked:
> /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -S -i -D /usr/local/pgsql/data -p 5432

OK, that eliminates the "forgot -i" gotcha.

James Thompson is almost certainly right that the problem is that
Postgres' pg_hba.conf file is not set up to allow connections from
whichever IP address you are connecting from.

We heard about a similar problem recently which turned out to be
due to use of "virtual server" IP addresses.  I've forgotten now
whether Postgres saw the connection as coming from the virtual IP
address or the underlying machine's real address, but anyway it wasn't
what the user was expecting :-(.

			regards, tom lane