From: | "wangsh(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangsh(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Refactor ECPGconnect and allow IPv6 connection |
Date: | 2021-02-24 05:53:13 |
Message-ID: | OSBPR01MB4214ED2FD6B27DD8EBC5BB83F29F9@OSBPR01MB4214.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, Kuroda-san:
Kuroda, Hayato/黒田 隼人 <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> * parse_options() was not refactored because
> it does not affect to parsing the host.
> I will try it if should be.
It seems host only can be the name of server, please refer [1].
And if I use command:
./bin/psql "postgresql://server1:26000/postgres?host=[::1]"
The error report is:
psql: error: could not translate host name "[::1]" to address: Name or service not known
So, I think parse_options() is not need to be refactored.
> How do you think?
In patch:
> ecpg_log("end of string reached when looking for matching \"]\" in IPv6 host address: \"%s\"\n", buf);
I think we can use the message as same as the message in fe-connect.c:
> libpq_gettext("end of string reached when looking for matching \"]\" in IPv6 host address in URI: \"%s\"\n"),
BTW, in fe-connect.c:
if (*p && *p != ':' && *p != '/' && *p != '?' && *p != ',')
{
appendPQExpBuffer(errorMessage,
libpq_gettext("unexpected character \"%c\" at position %d in URI (expected \":\" or \"/\"): \"%s\"\n"),
*p, (int) (p - buf + 1), uri);
goto cleanup;
}
Maybe we can add the expected character, like (expected ':', '/', '?' or ',')
I think this patch is good to me, I will review this patch later
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/libpq-connect.html#LIBPQ-PARAMKEYWORDS
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rahila Syed | 2021-02-24 06:06:50 | Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?) |
Previous Message | Ajin Cherian | 2021-02-24 05:48:20 | Re: repeated decoding of prepared transactions |