| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Rocco Altier <RoccoA(at)Routescape(dot)com>, Nigel Kukard <nkukard(at)lbsd(dot)net>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: IPv6 patch |
| Date: | 2003-01-28 03:08:49 |
| Message-ID: | 9901.1043723329@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> If we cleanly split the Postgres-specific code from the stuff that's
> been imported from BIND, shouldn't it be easy to import new versions,
> and thus get IPv6 support for free?
IIRC, the issue was that we'd painfully hammered out a set of preferred
I/O behaviors for the inet and cidr datatypes, and then hacked up the
code we'd imported from BIND to make it happen. Paul Vixie sent in a
patch that replaced the imported code with v6-aware BIND code ---
thereby reverting those painfully-agreed-to patches. So it got
rejected.
I have no problem with restructuring our I/O behavior as wrappers around
the pristine BIND routines; although privately I doubt it's worth the
trouble. The really interesting part of upgrading to v6 inet support is
going to be obtaining a consensus on how our current I/O behaviors should
translate to v6 addresses. Once we have that, I suspect that slash-and-
burn mods on the BIND code will again be the way to go ;-). It's not
like v6 is going to be replaced in the foreseeable future.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-01-28 03:11:39 | Re: IPv6 patch |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-01-28 02:07:34 | Re: IPv6 patch |