| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Rocco Altier <RoccoA(at)Routescape(dot)com>, Nigel Kukard <nkukard(at)lbsd(dot)net>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: IPv6 patch |
| Date: | 2003-01-07 17:19:03 |
| Message-ID: | 14383.1041959943@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> The issue was that folks didn't like silent fallback to just IPv4 if the
> code supported IPv6 but it didn't bind to IPv6 for some reason, e.g.
> kernel doesn't have IPv6 enabled.
Who didn't like it, and what was their rationale? This seems to me to
be equivalent to expecting Postgres to list out every IP address in the
world *except* the ones it was able to bind to. That's silly.
If the system does not support IPv6, there will be no v6 address
available to bind to. It is not going to startle anyone when we do
not bind to an IPv6 address on such a machine.
> Right now it puts a message in the
> server logs, but others wanted some specific way to enable IPv6 and fail
> if it didn't work.
Pure noise, and a useless "feature".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-07 17:20:31 | Re: IPv6 patch |
| Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2003-01-07 17:12:55 | Re: IPv6 patch |