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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
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? |