From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Tom Dunstan <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type |
Date: | 2016-11-09 18:13:48 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobyssA23J3+SRStt=Nte111uGv02vaaeS40LQVM7gvFDg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 11/7/16 1:13 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>> Yes, I agree that default zone is the main use case of the original thread.
>> From the RFC 4007, the default zone is used for the global addresses,
>> This may be the main use case with zone id. How about currently just
>> ignoring it and store the actual IP address with the attached patch and
>> handle the rest of the actual zone id support later once the it gets
>> properly standardized?
>
> Well, according to the RFC, the default zone is 0 "typically", which is
> a very weak requirement. So just ignoring it is probably also not right.
>
> So far we have only heard one use case for any of this, which is someone
> wanting to store ::1%0, which is not even a valid address according to
> that same RFC. So this is all on very weak ground.
>
> I think we should just forget about this. It's all a bit too dubious.
+1.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-09 18:18:07 | Re: Copying Permissions |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-09 18:12:09 | Re: PassDownLimitBound for ForeignScan/CustomScan [take-2] |