Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

Robert Haas writes: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Peter Eisentraut > 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 th

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Peter Eisentraut 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.

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

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 I

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 6/7/16 2:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 6/7/16 1:19 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > >> How about the following case, Do we treat them as same or different? > >> > >> select 'fe80::%eth1'::inet = 'fe

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

On 6/7/16 2:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/7/16 1:19 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: >> How about the following case, Do we treat them as same or different? >> >> select 'fe80::%eth1'::inet = 'fe80::%ETH1'::inet; >> >> fe80::%2/64 is only treated as the valid address but not other way as >> fe80::

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Markus Wanner wrote: >> I added another character array of 256 member into inet_struct as a last >> member >> to store the zone id. > > I haven't looked at the patch in detail, but zeroing or memcpy'ing those > 256 bytes seems like overkill to me. I'd recommend to

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

Haribabu, On 07.06.2016 07:19, Haribabu Kommi wrote: >> I have not looked at the spec, but I wouldn't be surprised if there >> were an upper limit on the length of valid scope names. Yeah, I didn't find any upper limit, either. > I am not able to find any link that suggests the maximum length of

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

On 6/7/16 1:19 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: How about the following case, Do we treat them as same or different? select 'fe80::%eth1'::inet = 'fe80::%ETH1'::inet; fe80::%2/64 is only treated as the valid address but not other way as fe80::/64%2. Do we need to throw an error in this case or just ig

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> Yeah, but what if somebody doesn't want to store scopes? > > [ shrug... ] We can invent a "strip_scope()" sort of function, > analogous to the weight-stripping function for tsvectors, or several > other examples. That's a

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

Robert Haas writes: > Yeah, but what if somebody doesn't want to store scopes? [ shrug... ] We can invent a "strip_scope()" sort of function, analogous to the weight-stripping function for tsvectors, or several other examples. That's a really lame excuse for not being *able* to store scopes. >

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Markus Wanner writes: >> That leaves me wondering if it's really worth extending INET, though. >> TEXT would be just fine to store a textual scope id. And it makes it >> utterly clear that there's no magic involved. > > True, but it would force us

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

Markus Wanner writes: > That leaves me wondering if it's really worth extending INET, though. > TEXT would be just fine to store a textual scope id. And it makes it > utterly clear that there's no magic involved. True, but it would force users to disassemble and reassemble the "address%scope" not

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

On 06/03/2016 06:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > More importantly, > on what basis do you conclude that the inet type will only be asked to > store link-local addresses that are currently valid on the local machine? > It is not very hard to think of applications where that wouldn't be the > case. That's

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

Markus Wanner writes: > Considering that Postgres is not unlikely to write INET types to > permanent storage, its values should better survive a reboot. And while > I have some doubts about persistence of interface names, those clearly > have a higher chance of surviving a reboot compared to inter

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

On 06/03/2016 12:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Markus Wanner writes: >> I'm even wondering if 'fe80::1%1'::inet = 'fe80::1%2'::inet shouldn't >> simply yield true. After all, it's the same (non-global) address. > > Surely not? If the zone_ids didn't mean anything, why would the concept > even exist?

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

Markus Wanner writes: > Given that a zone_id is a) highly system dependent and b) only ever > meaningful for non-global addresses, I'm wondering what the use case for > storing them is. > I'm even wondering if 'fe80::1%1'::inet = 'fe80::1%2'::inet shouldn't > simply yield true. After all, it's th

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

On 31.05.2016 12:40, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > On 05/31/2016 04:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Unless there's a semantic difference between fe80::1%2/64 and >> fe80::1/64%2, this doesn't seem like a big deal to me. > > As far as I can till only fe80::1%2/64 is valid, but I am not 100% sure. According

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

On 05/31/2016 04:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Andreas Karlsson writes: On 05/31/2016 02:37 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: The % delimiter character is not only used at the end of the IPV6 address, from the RFC document, it is possible as follows also. fe80::%2/64 we need to handle both the scenarios,

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

Andreas Karlsson writes: > On 05/31/2016 02:37 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: >> The % delimiter character is not only used at the end of the IPV6 address, >> from the RFC document, it is possible as follows also. >> >> fe80::%2/64 >> >> we need to handle both the scenarios, it may not be a straight

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

On 05/31/2016 02:37 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: The following is the content of IPV6 representation from RFC 4007 The following addresses fe80::1234 (on the 1st link of the node) ff02::5678 (on the 5th link of the node) ff08::9abc (on the 10th organizatio

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Tom Dunstan wrote: > >> On 31 May 2016, at 2:07 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> The impression I have is that scopes are not very well standardized --- >> eg, OS X reports things like "fe80::1%lo0" not just "%0". If we could >> get around that problem it would be worth

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

> On 31 May 2016, at 2:07 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > The impression I have is that scopes are not very well standardized --- > eg, OS X reports things like "fe80::1%lo0" not just "%0". If we could > get around that problem it would be worth doing. Yeah, we’d have to just store it as a string I th

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

Tom Dunstan writes: > Basically the inet data type cannot store or parse valid ipv6 address > literals with a scope / zone id suffix. Apparently the combination of > virtualised linux, ipv6 network and JVM that we are using has combined to > report connections on localhost as coming from ‘::1

[HACKERS] IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type

Hi all I just ran into an issue that was originally reported way back in 2007 - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/0262b803-b664-4ebe-85b4-3c9a40ea6...@mobygames.com Basically the inet data

[HACKERS] IPv6 issue on Win32

Hi, I am facing issue compiling latest postgresql-8.3.4 code on windows .I installed Visual Studio 2005 Express and Microsoft windows SDK latest v6.1 on windows XP (SP2) as described by http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/install-win32-full.html and trying to build postgresql-8.3.4, it

Re: [HACKERS] Ipv6 and Postgresql 8.0.3

Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > First, do not name the mailing list in both the To: and Cc: lines - > that's just redundant. Second, this is the wrong list to ask this > question, as you were told last time. Ask on the pgsql-general list. And third, show us the darn error messages .

Re: [HACKERS] Ipv6 and Postgresql 8.0.3

First, do not name the mailing list in both the To: and Cc: lines - that's just redundant. Second, this is the wrong list to ask this question, as you were told last time. Ask on the pgsql-general list. cheers andrew R, Rajesh (STSD) wrote: PLZ REPLY Hello there, I run Postgresql 8.0.3

[HACKERS] Ipv6 and Postgresql 8.0.3

PLZ REPLY Hello there, I run Postgresql 8.0.3 on Tru64 Unix m/c. I have included the ipv6 auth. line in my pg_hba.conf file(::1/128) I keep getting error msgs from postmaster everytime I try to connect. Going by previous posts on the topic am unable to conclude. Does this mean pg 8.0.3 doesn'

Re: [HACKERS] Ipv6 and Postgresql 8.0.3

"R, Rajesh (STSD)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have included the ipv6 auth. line in my pg_hba.conf file(::1/128) I > keep getting error msgs from postmaster everytime I try to connect. This is not the appropriate list to be asking basic support questions on. Especially not when you don't provi

[HACKERS] Ipv6 and Postgresql 8.0.3

Hello there, I have included the ipv6 auth. line in my pg_hba.conf file(::1/128) I keep getting error msgs from postmaster everytime I try to connect. Going by previous posts on the topic am unable to conclude. Does this mean pg 8.0.3 doesn't support ipv6 client auth. ?? Or is there a patch s

[HACKERS] Ipv6 and Postgresql 8.0.3

Hello there, I run Postgresql 8.0.3 on Tru64 Unix m/c. I have included the ipv6 auth. line in my pg_hba.conf file(::1/128) I keep getting error msgs from postmaster everytime I try to connect. Going by previous posts on the topic am unable to conclude. Does this mean pg 8.0.3 doesn't support i

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 in 7.4?

On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:22:51AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Guys, > > So ... do we have full IPv6 support in 7.4, or what? For the network ipv6 support: It should all work. Afaik, there is only 1 piece of the networking code left that doesn't support ipv6 and that is Kerberos 4. And that is

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 in 7.4?

Guys, So ... do we have full IPv6 support in 7.4, or what? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHe

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 in pg_hba.conf.sample fails here

Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Agreed. I wanted to put the ipv6 entry in there only if they compiled > with ipv6 suport, but that seemed strange to some, I think. > I would comment it out. Done. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 in pg_hba.conf.sample fails here

Agreed. I wanted to put the ipv6 entry in there only if they compiled with ipv6 suport, but that seemed strange to some, I think. I would comment it out. --- Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Yeah, I'd be very surprised if many n

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 in pg_hba.conf.sample fails here

Yeah, I'd be very surprised if many need it, and those who do can uncomment it. I think commenting it out is the right thing (tm). andrew Tom Lane wrote: Testing a connection that should fail (for lack of pg_hba entry): $ psql -h sss2 tgl psql: FATAL: missing or erroneous pg_hba.conf file HIN

[HACKERS] IPv6 in pg_hba.conf.sample fails here

Testing a connection that should fail (for lack of pg_hba entry): $ psql -h sss2 tgl psql: FATAL: missing or erroneous pg_hba.conf file HINT: See postmaster log for details. $ Say what? This is with a completely default pg_hba.conf file... looking in the postmaster log as suggested: LOG: cou

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 datatype patch

>> ftp://ftp.kame.net/pub/kame/misc/ >> has IPv6 datatype patch (makes "inet" type handle both IPv4 and IPv6) >> for 7.3.2. let me know how i can proceed/help. > >There already is a patch in cvs head that does the same except it >doesn't handle the scope. > >It would probably be use

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 datatype patch

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 06:26:10PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ftp://ftp.kame.net/pub/kame/misc/ > has IPv6 datatype patch (makes "inet" type handle both IPv4 and IPv6) > for 7.3.2. let me know how i can proceed/help. There already is a patch in cvs head that does the same

[HACKERS] IPv6 datatype patch

ftp://ftp.kame.net/pub/kame/misc/ has IPv6 datatype patch (makes "inet" type handle both IPv4 and IPv6) for 7.3.2. let me know how i can proceed/help. itojun ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Tom Lane wrote: > Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > If we cleanly split the Postgres-specific code from the stuff that's > > been imported from BIND, shouldn't it be easy to import new versions, > > and thus get IPv6 support for free? > > IIRC, the issue was that we'd painfully hammered

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If we cleanly split the Postgres-specific code from the stuff that's > been imported from BIND, shouldn't it be easy to import new versions, > and thus get IPv6 support for free? IIRC, the issue was that we'd painfully hammered out a set of preferred I/O b

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

That is _exactly_ how it has to be done. --- Neil Conway wrote: > On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 20:19, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I had someone on the IPv6 IRC channel interested, but haven't seen any > > patch yet. It isn't that har

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 20:19, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I had someone on the IPv6 IRC channel interested, but haven't seen any > patch yet. It isn't that hard to do. If we cleanly split the Postgres-specific code from the stuff that's been imported from BIND, shouldn't it be easy to import new versio

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > > > However, the server log messages stating an IPv6 socket was > > not made is > > > > only printed if the binary supports IPv6. The message seems to be a > > > > compromise between those who wanted a separate IPv6 GUC/flag and those > > > > who wanted it to sil

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

> > > However, the server log messages stating an IPv6 socket was > not made is > > > only printed if the binary supports IPv6. The message seems to be a > > > compromise between those who wanted a separate IPv6 GUC/flag and those > > > who wanted it to silently fail on IPv6. > > > > I'm not sure.

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > However, the server log messages stating an IPv6 socket was not made is > > only printed if the binary supports IPv6. The message seems to be a > > compromise between those who wanted a separate IPv6 GUC/flag and those > > who wanted it to sil

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Bruce Momjian writes: > However, the server log messages stating an IPv6 socket was not made is > only printed if the binary supports IPv6. The message seems to be a > compromise between those who wanted a separate IPv6 GUC/flag and those > who wanted it to silently fail on IPv6. I'm not sure.

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

OK, at your suggestion, IPv6 addresses will appear in pg_hba.conf, even if we don't support IPv6. However, the server log messages stating an IPv6 socket was not made is only printed if the binary supports IPv6. The message seems to be a compromise between those who wanted a separate IPv6 GUC/fl

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > OK, you mentioned you want to put IPv6 addresses in pg_hba.conf even if > > the OS doesn't support it. How do others feel about that. > > We do leave the "local" in there even if the OS doesn't support it. Good point. I will have the IPv6 b

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Bruce Momjian writes: > OK, you mentioned you want to put IPv6 addresses in pg_hba.conf even if > the OS doesn't support it. How do others feel about that. We do leave the "local" in there even if the OS doesn't support it. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > OK, Peter, to keep you and everyone happy, what changes are your > > proposing to the existing code, if any. The only current behavior is > > printing an IPv6 failure for IPv6-enabled backend in the server logs. > > Just bind to all addresses

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Bruce Momjian writes: > OK, Peter, to keep you and everyone happy, what changes are your > proposing to the existing code, if any. The only current behavior is > printing an IPv6 failure for IPv6-enabled backend in the server logs. Just bind to all addresses you can find, IPv4 or IPv6. And leav

Re: [HACKERS] ipv6 build error?

Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > Actually, CVS HEAD now builds and compiles quite cleanly on the Alpha. I'm > not sure what you did to fix it? Perhaps it's not compiling in ipv6 at all? > If so, probably doesn't matter. > Yes, I think it is accurate that it isn't compiling at all. I modified t

Re: [HACKERS] ipv6 build error?

n [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, 9 January 2003 9:16 AM > To: Christopher Kings-Lynne > Cc: Hackers > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ipv6 build error? > > > > OK, Christopher, how should we deal with this? I don't think defining > _KERNEL is a good idea. The on

Re: [HACKERS] ipv6 build error?

assume I have > ipv6 built. It is a 4.4-stable box with GENERIC kernel. I just rebuilt > from very latest CVS and it still failed. > > Chris > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent:

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > Peter was the first to mention it. His reasoning was that if IPv6 was > > working, but then stopped working, the admin would never know on startup > > because of the IPv4 fallback. > > My view was that we should treat unix, ipv4, and ipv6 as

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Bruce Momjian writes: > Peter was the first to mention it. His reasoning was that if IPv6 was > working, but then stopped working, the admin would never know on startup > because of the IPv4 fallback. My view was that we should treat unix, ipv4, and ipv6 as independent address families each with

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

--On Tuesday, January 07, 2003 12:24:41 -0500 Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Larry Rosenman wrote: --On Tuesday, January 07, 2003 12:20:31 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> We already do. The issue is what way should we give

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Larry Rosenman wrote: > > > --On Tuesday, January 07, 2003 12:20:31 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> We already do. The issue is what way should we give admins to _fail_ if > >> IPv6 doesn't start. > > > > What is "IPv6 doesn't st

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > We already do. The issue is what way should we give admins to _fail_ if > > IPv6 doesn't start. > > What is "IPv6 doesn't start"? Either the machine has IPv6 addresses, > or it doesn't. It is not our job to notify the DBA what the

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

--On Tuesday, January 07, 2003 12:20:31 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: We already do. The issue is what way should we give admins to _fail_ if IPv6 doesn't start. What is "IPv6 doesn't start"? Either the machine has IPv6 addresses, or it

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The issue was that folks didn't like silent fallback to just IPv4 if the > > code supported IPv6 but it didn't bind to IPv6 for some reason, e.g. > > kernel doesn't have IPv6 enabled. > > Who didn't like it, and what was their rationa

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We already do. The issue is what way should we give admins to _fail_ if > IPv6 doesn't start. What is "IPv6 doesn't start"? Either the machine has IPv6 addresses, or it doesn't. It is not our job to notify the DBA what the addresses on his machine are

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The issue was that folks didn't like silent fallback to just IPv4 if the > code supported IPv6 but it didn't bind to IPv6 for some reason, e.g. > kernel doesn't have IPv6 enabled. Who didn't like it, and what was their rationale? This seems to me to be

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Tom Lane wrote: > Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Please make sure that you can handle the situation of a IPv6 API, but no > > IPv6 stack. (E.G. UnixWare up to at least 7.1.3). > > Certainly. But that is just an autoconfiguration problem. If a v6 IP > address is available, we sh

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

--On Tuesday, January 07, 2003 12:07:05 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Please make sure that you can handle the situation of a IPv6 API, but no IPv6 stack. (E.G. UnixWare up to at least 7.1.3). Certainly. But that is just an autoconfigu

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Larry Rosenman wrote: > > No one has offered any scenario in which it's important to bind to only > > v4 or only v6 addresses when both are present. In the absence of a > > compelling argument why that would be useful, I do not see why we're > > worrying. My own thought is that if I wanted to con

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Tom Lane wrote: > Rocco Altier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Another idea is to have the -i take an optional argument. Something where > > -i means bind to both v4 and v6, and -i4 means to only v4, and -i6 to only > > v6. > > I don't see why we need any such thing. The current behavior of th

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Please make sure that you can handle the situation of a IPv6 API, but no > IPv6 stack. (E.G. UnixWare up to at least 7.1.3). Certainly. But that is just an autoconfiguration problem. If a v6 IP address is available, we should bind to it.

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

--On Tuesday, January 07, 2003 11:51:44 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rocco Altier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Another idea is to have the -i take an optional argument. Something where -i means bind to both v4 and v6, and -i4 means to only v4, and -i6 to only v6. I don't see why

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Rocco Altier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Another idea is to have the -i take an optional argument. Something where > -i means bind to both v4 and v6, and -i4 means to only v4, and -i6 to only > v6. I don't see why we need any such thing. The current behavior of the postmaster (assuming -i or

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Another idea is to have the -i take an optional argument. Something where -i means bind to both v4 and v6, and -i4 means to only v4, and -i6 to only v6. I am guessing that most people will want to bind to both when they just specify -i, which is what is usually suggested when they want to get t

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

You mean ship with only IPv4 enabled, but not IPv6. (Of course, both are enabled in the binary.) But then what does -i do? We currently tell people to use -i. Do we need another postgresql.conf option that says, "If tcpip_socket is enabled, enable IPv6 too"? But that doesn't work if you want

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

OK, what do we ship as a default? --- Nigel Kukard wrote: > Sorry i'm not subscribed to hackers, guess i must get soon! > > > Anyway what i think should happen is follows, if in the configuration file > we specify that it

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 detection

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > The IPv6 patch currently checks for the function getaddrinfo() and the > > include file netinet/ip6.h. > > getaddrinfo() has nothing to do with IPv6, and netinet/ip6.h isn't > included anywhere, so why check for it? > > I believe we would nee

Re: [HACKERS] ipv6 build error?

Kings-Lynne > Cc: Hackers > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ipv6 build error? > > > > Interesting. > > I see in BSD/OS /usr/include/netinet6/in6.h: > > struct in6_addr { > union { > u_int8_t __u6_addr8[16]; > u_int16_t

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 detection

Bruce Momjian writes: > The IPv6 patch currently checks for the function getaddrinfo() and the > include file netinet/ip6.h. getaddrinfo() has nothing to do with IPv6, and netinet/ip6.h isn't included anywhere, so why check for it? I believe we would need to check for a combination of getaddrin

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

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 is

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Greg Copeland wrote: > > > > Yes, it listens on both. The original author, Nigel, tested in using > > > > both IPv4 and IPv6, and the #ipv6 IRC channel and google postings seem > > > > to indicate that too. What I am not sure how to do is say _only_ IPv4. > > > > > > Wouldn't you just use an IPv4

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 16:17, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Greg Copeland wrote: > > On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 15:59, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Greg Copeland wrote: > > > > > It appears right at the top because creating the socket is the first > > > > > thing it does. A good question is once we have a way fo

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Greg Copeland wrote: > On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 15:59, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Greg Copeland wrote: > > > > It appears right at the top because creating the socket is the first > > > > thing it does. A good question is once we have a way for the user to > > > > control IPv4/6, what do we ship as a d

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 15:59, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Greg Copeland wrote: > > > It appears right at the top because creating the socket is the first > > > thing it does. A good question is once we have a way for the user to > > > control IPv4/6, what do we ship as a default? IPv4-only? Both, and

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Greg Copeland wrote: > > It appears right at the top because creating the socket is the first > > thing it does. A good question is once we have a way for the user to > > control IPv4/6, what do we ship as a default? IPv4-only? Both, and if > > both, do we fail on a kernel that doesn't have IPv6

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 15:43, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Greg Copeland wrote: > > On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 15:29, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > (2) A socket type is explicitly enabled for the server to use, and if > > > creation fails, server startup fails. It seems that the current code > > > falls back

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Greg Copeland wrote: > On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 15:29, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > (2) A socket type is explicitly enabled for the server to use, and if > > creation fails, server startup fails. It seems that the current code > > falls back to IPv4 if IPv6 fails. > > IIRC, it allows it to fall back

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > Patch applied. I added a small mention of IPv6 addresses to the > > pg_hba.conf documentation. Not sure where else to mention it. > > Can this patch please be cleaned up so the code doesn't contain an #ifdef > on every other line? I posted

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 15:29, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > (2) A socket type is explicitly enabled for the server to use, and if > creation fails, server startup fails. It seems that the current code > falls back to IPv4 if IPv6 fails. IIRC, it allows it to fall back to IPv4 in case it's compiled for

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Bruce Momjian writes: > Patch applied. I added a small mention of IPv6 addresses to the > pg_hba.conf documentation. Not sure where else to mention it. Can this patch please be cleaned up so the code doesn't contain an #ifdef on every other line? I would also like to discuss how IPv6 is handle

Re: [HACKERS] ipv6 build error?

Interesting. I see in BSD/OS /usr/include/netinet6/in6.h: struct in6_addr { union { u_int8_t __u6_addr8[16]; u_int16_t __u6_addr16[8]; u_int32_t __u6_addr32[4]; } __u6_addr;/* 128-bit IP6 address */

[HACKERS] ipv6 build error?

On FreeBSD/Alpha: gmake[3]: Entering directory `/home/chriskl/pgsql-head/src/backend/libpq' gcc -pipe -O -g -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -I../../.. /src/include -c -o be-fsstubs.o be-fsstubs.c -MMD gcc -pipe -O -g -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -I../../..

[HACKERS] IPv6 detection

The IPv6 patch currently checks for the function getaddrinfo() and the include file netinet/ip6.h. Is this a sufficient test? Anyone with/without IPv6 that does match not this test? -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 3

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

Patch applied. I added a small mention of IPv6 addresses to the pg_hba.conf documentation. Not sure where else to mention it. --- Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have been working on a patch to implement IPv6 connections. A work

[HACKERS] IPv6 patch

I have been working on a patch to implement IPv6 connections. A working patch was supplied by Nigel Kukard about two weeks ago, and I have been improving it. The original patch assumed the system has IPv6 functions, like getaddrinfo(), so the major work was patching it into our existing code that

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch rejected

I didn't read my email this weekend, so I am sorry to be late getting back to you on this. First, let me say I am excited about this patch. Several people have asked for IPv6 support, but you are the first person to actually submit a patch for it. I want to comment on the patch a bit because IP

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch rejected

Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am pretty sure it is going to fail if your machine isn't INET6 aware, > which may be many. That's definitely not gonna do :-( regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: su

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch rejected

I now have the INETv6 patch working using IPv4 on my machine, and I don't have IPv6 enabled in my kernel. Tomorrow, I will review the entire patch for portability issues, then post it so others can test it. I am pretty sure it is going to fail if your machine isn't INET6 aware, which may be many.

[HACKERS] IPv6 patch rejected

The INETv6 patch was rejected because of this report, and an error on postmaster startup from BSD/OS: LOG: FATAL: StreamServerPort: getaddrinfo2() failed: hostname nor servname provided, or not known Please submit a new patch that addresses these issues. I can work with you to

Re: [HACKERS] ipv6

Tom Lane wrote: > Ola Sundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Whatever happened to that patch that Paul Vixie sent in, that was supposed > > to be applied? Why is it still in the TODO list? > > Because Paul hasn't fixed the outstanding problems with it: as > submitted, it reverted the painfully-a

Re: [HACKERS] ipv6

Ola Sundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Whatever happened to that patch that Paul Vixie sent in, that was supposed > to be applied? Why is it still in the TODO list? Because Paul hasn't fixed the outstanding problems with it: as submitted, it reverted the painfully-agreed-to formatting behavior

  1   2   >