| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: List of hostaddrs not supported |
| Date: | 2017-06-08 13:49:10 |
| Message-ID: | 10984.1496929750@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
> So, this is all quite confusing. I think we should support a list of
> hostaddrs, to go with the list of hostnames. It seems like a strange
> omission.
+1, if it's not too large a patch. It could be argued that this is
a new feature and should wait for v11, but the behavior you describe
is weird enough that it could also be called a bug fix.
If it seems too hard to fix fully for v10, maybe we could insert
some checking code that just counts the number of entries in the
two lists and insists they match (which we'd keep later), plus
some code to reject >1 hostaddr (which would eventually go away).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-06-08 14:03:37 | Re: Broken hint bits (freeze) |
| Previous Message | Dmitriy Sarafannikov | 2017-06-08 13:19:58 | Re: Broken hint bits (freeze) |