On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 16:40, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Bruce Momjian writes: > The issue is that right now, there isn't any special IPv6 enabling, > except for lines in pg_hba.conf. I think it is fine to add some > enabling, but we then have an additional user interface issue. One idea > I had was to change tcpip_socket from true/false to true/false/4/6 so > you can specify if you want none(false)/4/6/both(true). The original > patch author wants this functionality too, so there clearly is a need > for this. This doesn't play nice with the -i flag, however. >
Would there a downside to specifying both (enabling ipv6) on a machine that doesn't support it? If not I'd suggest making -i equivalent to tcp_ip_socket = true. I don't think it's too much to ask people to use the preferred method to obtain maximum functionality. > Also, keep in mine my BSD/OS has libraries to support IPv6, but IPv6 > isn't enabled in the kernel, so there is a case where HAVE_IPV6 is true, > but when run, opening an IPV6 server fails and I fall back to IPv4 --- > just throwing that out as a data point. What would be our default as > shipped? If there is no downside to allowing both, probably both. If there is a downside then ipv4, since it much more likely to be the default on OS's for the next release or two. Robert Treat ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
