Re: IPv6 patch

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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

Peter was the first to mention it. His reasoning was that if IPv6 was
working, but then stopped working, the admin would never know on startup
because of the IPv4 fallback.

> 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".

Again, that info is for the admin so they have some feedback that we
aren't using IPv6, even though IPv6 addresses appear in pg_hba.conf
(only because we had the IPv6 API).

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073