Re: TCP/IP with 7.4 beta2 broken?

Bruce Momjian wrote:

>Tom Lane wrote:
>  
>
>>Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> 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?
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>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.
>>>      
>>>
>>To what purpose?  I think I prefer Andrew Dunstan's approach of allowing
>>IPv4 syntax in pg_hba.conf to match appropriate IPv6 connections.
>>    
>>
>
>I am confused.  Andrew Dunstan's approach added a new 'loopback' line
>to pg_hba.conf.
>
>Andreas Pflug had the patch that treated IPv4 as IPv6.
>
>  
>

There's a lot of confusion around :-) Let me see if I can disentangle 
some of it.

People seem to want two things:
1. if ip4 is being tunneled over ip6 as it is in most Linux 
distributions, match a corresponding 'host*' line with an ip4 address.
2. enable local connections of whatever flavor by default.

Andreas has addressed item 1. I suggested an approach to item 2. The 
only alternative I can see is to allow ip4-only postmasters to recognize 
and silently drop ip6 'host*' lines. I don't like the idea of silently 
ignoring config lines - it seems dangerous to me. Suggestions of having 
initdb or something similar conditionally set the default pg_hba.conf 
also strike me as impractical and fragile.

What Andreas did and what I did are not mutually exclusive - they could 
live happily together.

(now back to wrestling with embedded functions)

cheers

andrew