On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> It doesn't seem like a problem to me if somebody else wants to extend >> it to hostaddr, though. Whether that change belongs in v10 or v11 is >> debatable. I would object to adding this as an open item with me as >> the owner because doesn't seem to me to be a must-fix issue, but I >> don't mind someone else doing the work. > > If you want to define multiple-hostaddrs as a future feature, that > seems fine, but I think Heikki is describing actual bugs. The minimum > that I think needs to be done for v10 is to make libpq reject a hostaddr > string with the wrong number of entries (either different from the > host list, or different from 1).
Whatever you put in the hostaddr field - or any field other than host and port - is one entry. There is no notion of a list of entries in any other field, and no attempt to split any other field on a comma or any other symbol. The fact that ::1,::1 looks to you like two entries rather than a single malformed entry is just a misunderstanding on your part, just like you'd be wrong if you thought that password=foo,bar is a list of passwords rather than a password containing a comma. I think the argument is about whether I made the right decision when I scoped the feature, not about whether there's a defect in the implementation. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers