| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: IPv6 in pg_hba.conf.sample fails here |
| Date: | 2003-08-01 21:23:24 |
| Message-ID: | 3F2ADA4C.8040304@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Yeah, I'd be very surprised if many need it, and those who do can
uncomment it. I think commenting it out is the right thing (tm).
andrew
Tom Lane wrote:
>Testing a connection that should fail (for lack of pg_hba entry):
>
>$ psql -h sss2 tgl
>psql: FATAL: missing or erroneous pg_hba.conf file
>HINT: See postmaster log for details.
>$
>
>Say what? This is with a completely default pg_hba.conf file...
>looking in the postmaster log as suggested:
>
>LOG: could not interpret IP address "::1" in config file: Unknown server error
>LOG: invalid entry in pg_hba.conf file at line 55, token "::1"
>FATAL: missing or erroneous pg_hba.conf file
>HINT: See postmaster log for details.
>
>In short, it will not do to put IPv6 addresses into pg_hba.conf
>by default on machines where IPv6 support is not present.
>
>While we could gin up some mechanism to adjust the installed copy of
>pg_hba.conf.sample depending on whether we detected IPv6 support,
>I am inclined to simply remove or comment out the IPv6-specific entry
>in the sample file. I doubt that many people actually need it, and
>the ones who do can just adjust the sample file.
>
>Comments?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2003-08-01 21:28:08 | Re: Upcoming Release of PostgreSQL, Inc's erserver v1.2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-01 20:48:41 | IPv6 in pg_hba.conf.sample fails here |