From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: TCP/IP with 7.4 beta2 broken? |
Date: | 2003-09-04 17:53:29 |
Message-ID: | 3F577C19.3060902@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>Tom Lane writes:
>
>
>
>>Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Can we allow the IPv6 entries to be in pg_hba.conf but ignore them on
>>>non-IPv6 machines, or allow the connection to fail?
>>>
>>>
>>I don't see a good way yet. The fly in the ointment is that HAVE_IPV6
>>is set by configure based on the capabilities of userland libraries;
>>we cannot assume that HAVE_IPV6 means the kernel knows IPv6. But if
>>we simply suppress failure messages on IPv6 addresses, we are going to
>>create severe headaches for people who are actually using IPv6.
>>
>>
>
>What is the problem? Is it that a non-IPv6 enabled postmaster is unable
>to identify or parse valid IPv6 address specifications? In that case,
>we need to provide some substitute routines.
>
>
>
Having parsed it what would it do with it? Surely if IP6 isn't
configured in then having an IP6 address in pg_hba.conf is an error.
That's why we commented those lines out in the default pg_hba.conf some
weeks ago.
If Andreas Pflug's patch (with Kurt's caveat) and my patch are applied,
then I really think there won't be any more difficulties in this area.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | markw | 2003-09-04 17:53:50 | Prelimiary DBT-2 Test results |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-09-04 17:50:38 | Re: TCP/IP with 7.4 beta2 broken? |