Re: TCP/IP with 7.4 beta2 broken?

Peter Eisentraut wrote:

>Tom Lane writes:
>
>  
>
>>Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.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.
>
>  
>
Having parsed it what would it do with it? Surely if IP6 isn't 
configured in then having an IP6 address in pg_hba.conf is an error. 
That's why we commented those lines out in the default pg_hba.conf some 
weeks ago.

If Andreas Pflug's patch (with Kurt's caveat) and my patch are applied, 
then I really think there won't be any more difficulties in this area.

cheers

andrew