non-ipv6 vs hostnames
Accidentally specifying an IPv6 address in pg_hba.conf on a system
that doesn't have ipv6 support gives the following error:
LOG: specifying both host name and CIDR mask is invalid: "::1/128"
Which is obviously wrong, because I didn't do that. Do we need to
detect and special-case ipv6 addresses in this case?
FWIW, the line was simply:
host replication all ::1/128 trust
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
Accidentally specifying an IPv6 address in pg_hba.conf on a system
that doesn't have ipv6 support gives the following error:
LOG: specifying both host name and CIDR mask is invalid: "::1/128"
Which is obviously wrong, because I didn't do that. Do we need to
detect and special-case ipv6 addresses in this case?
Doesn't really seem worth going out of our way for that. Systems with
no IPv6 support are a dying breed, and will be more so by the time 9.2
gets deployed.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 16:12, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
Accidentally specifying an IPv6 address in pg_hba.conf on a system
that doesn't have ipv6 support gives the following error:LOG: specifying both host name and CIDR mask is invalid: "::1/128"
Which is obviously wrong, because I didn't do that. Do we need to
detect and special-case ipv6 addresses in this case?Doesn't really seem worth going out of our way for that. Systems with
no IPv6 support are a dying breed, and will be more so by the time 9.2
gets deployed.
Well, I got this on a win64 build. It's *supposed* to have ipv6. I
wonder if it breaks on windows just because there is no ipv6 address
on the machine...
Unfortunately I shut the machine down and won't have time to test more
right now, but I'll try to figure that out later unless beaten to
it...
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On tis, 2011-08-16 at 16:17 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Well, I got this on a win64 build. It's *supposed* to have ipv6. I
wonder if it breaks on windows just because there is no ipv6 address
on the machine...
It would mean that getaddrinfo() of "::1" failed. That seems weird.
On tis, 2011-08-16 at 16:17 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Well, I got this on a win64 build. It's *supposed* to have ipv6. I
wonder if it breaks on windows just because there is no ipv6 address
on the machine...It would mean that getaddrinfo() of "::1" failed. That seems weird.
A system admin can set registry keys to disable IPv6, either partially (allowing ::1), or totally (all IPv6 addresses fail).
If the system has IPv6 enabled, it's not possible for there to be no ipv6 address. There is always the link-local address of each LAN adapter.
On ons, 2011-08-17 at 13:12 -0400, Charles.McDevitt@emc.com wrote:
On tis, 2011-08-16 at 16:17 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Well, I got this on a win64 build. It's *supposed* to have ipv6. I
wonder if it breaks on windows just because there is no ipv6 address
on the machine...It would mean that getaddrinfo() of "::1" failed. That seems weird.
A system admin can set registry keys to disable IPv6, either partially (allowing ::1), or totally (all IPv6 addresses fail).
If the system has IPv6 enabled, it's not possible for there to be no ipv6 address. There is always the link-local address of each LAN adapter.
The problem here is that the system cannot *parse* the address "::1".
This should not have anything to do with which addresses exist or could
exist.