Re: TCP/IP with 7.4 beta2 broken?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, Tommi Mäkitalo <t(dot)maekitalo(at)epgmbh(dot)de>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: TCP/IP with 7.4 beta2 broken?
Date: 2003-09-04 17:18:57
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0309041915430.1488-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-09-04 17:19:58 Re: Seqscan in MAX(index_column)
Previous Message Kurt Roeckx 2003-09-04 17:14:08 Re: compile warnings in CVS HEAD?