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 out a set of preferred
> I/O behaviors for the inet and cidr datatypes, and then hacked up the
> code we'd imported from BIND to make it happen.  Paul Vixie sent in a
> patch that replaced the imported code with v6-aware BIND code ---
> thereby reverting those painfully-agreed-to patches.  So it got
> rejected.
> I have no problem with restructuring our I/O behavior as wrappers around
> the pristine BIND routines; although privately I doubt it's worth the
> trouble.  The really interesting part of upgrading to v6 inet support is
> going to be obtaining a consensus on how our current I/O behaviors should
> translate to v6 addresses.  Once we have that, I suspect that slash-and-
> burn mods on the BIND code will again be the way to go ;-).  It's not
> like v6 is going to be replaced in the foreseeable future.

Yes, we need to keep merge the changes we made to the original IPv4 code
into IPv6.  IPv6 seems to be maturing a little so if we can keep the
bind stuff pretty similar and just call it, that would be nice too. 
Seems someone has to do the legwork and see what is involved.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

Reply via email to