Re: IPv6 patch

On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 16:40, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> The issue is that right now, there isn't any special IPv6 enabling,
> except for lines in pg_hba.conf. I think it is fine to add some
> enabling, but we then have an additional user interface issue. One idea
> I had was to change tcpip_socket from true/false to true/false/4/6 so
> you can specify if you want none(false)/4/6/both(true). The original
> patch author wants this functionality too, so there clearly is a need
> for this. This doesn't play nice with the -i flag, however.
>

Would there a downside to specifying both (enabling ipv6) on a machine
that doesn't support it? If not I'd suggest making -i equivalent to
tcp_ip_socket = true. I don't think it's too much to ask people to use
the preferred method to obtain maximum functionality.

> Also, keep in mine my BSD/OS has libraries to support IPv6, but IPv6
> isn't enabled in the kernel, so there is a case where HAVE_IPV6 is true,
> but when run, opening an IPV6 server fails and I fall back to IPv4 ---
> just throwing that out as a data point. What would be our default as
> shipped?

If there is no downside to allowing both, probably both. If there is a
downside then ipv4, since it much more likely to be the default on OS's
for the next release or two.

Robert Treat