> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:31:25PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> > No, PQping("host='127.0.0.1'") fails to reach a listen_addresses='::'
>> > server
>> > on many systems. Here's what I thought Kondo was proposing:
>> > --- a/src/bin/pg_ctl/pg_ctl.c
>> > +++ b/src/bin/pg_ctl/pg_ctl.c
>> > @@ -649,5 +649,9 @@ test_postmaster_connection(pgpid_t pm_pid, bool
>> > do_checkpoint)
>> > - /* If postmaster is listening
>> > on "*", use localhost */
>> > + /* explanation here */
>> > if (strcmp(host_str, "*") == 0)
>> > strcpy(host_str,
>> > "localhost");
>> > + else if (strcmp(host_str,
>> > "0.0.0.0") == 0)
>> > + strcpy(host_str,
>> > "127.0.0.1");
>> > + else if (strcmp(host_str, "::")
>> > == 0)
>> > + strcpy(host_str, "::1");
>> I see. Would you like to commit this?
> I am happy to finish it, but I am no less happy if you finish it. Which do
> you prefer?
Please go ahead and commit.
> Should the back-branch commits mirror the master branch? A more-cautious
> alternative would be to, in back branches, wrap the change in #ifdefs so it
> takes effect only on Windows, OpenBSD and NetBSD. It could break setups with
> local firewall rules that block connections to "127.0.0.1" or "::1" without
> blocking "0.0.0.0" or "::". Such firewall rules sound outlandish enough that
> I would be fairly comfortable not worrying about this and making the change
> unconditional in all branches. It's a judgment call, though.
I think back patching with #ifdefs is better. On Windows etc. the case
has been broken anyway and the fix should only bring benefits to users.
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: