Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

2017-07-10 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 07/10/2017 01:47 PM, Arthur Zakirov wrote: Hello, 2017-07-10 12:30 GMT+03:00 Heikki Linnakangas : I just remembered that this was still pending. I made the documentation changes, and committed this patch now. We're uncomfortably close to wrapping the next beta, later

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

2017-07-10 Thread Arthur Zakirov
Hello, 2017-07-10 12:30 GMT+03:00 Heikki Linnakangas : > > > I just remembered that this was still pending. I made the documentation > changes, and committed this patch now. > > We're uncomfortably close to wrapping the next beta, later today, but I > think it's better to get

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

2017-07-10 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 06/09/2017 04:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Right. I think it's a usability fail as it is; it certainly fooled me. We could make the error messages and documentation more clear. But even better to allow multiple host

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

2017-06-09 Thread Jeff Janes
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 06/09/2017 05:47 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > >> Your commit to fix this part, 76b11e8a43eca4612d, is giving me compiler >> warnings: >> >> fe-connect.c: In function 'connectDBStart': >> fe-connect.c:1625: warning: 'ret'

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

2017-06-09 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 06/09/2017 05:47 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: Your commit to fix this part, 76b11e8a43eca4612d, is giving me compiler warnings: fe-connect.c: In function 'connectDBStart': fe-connect.c:1625: warning: 'ret' may be used uninitialized in this function gcc version 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-18)

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

2017-06-09 Thread Tom Lane
Jeff Janes writes: > Your commit to fix this part, 76b11e8a43eca4612d, is giving me compiler > warnings: > fe-connect.c: In function 'connectDBStart': > fe-connect.c:1625: warning: 'ret' may be used uninitialized in this function Me too ... > gcc version 4.4.7 20120313

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

2017-06-09 Thread Jeff Janes
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > While testing libpq and GSS the other day, I was surprised by the behavior > of the host and hostaddr libpq options, if you specify a list of hostnames. > > I did this this, and it took me quite a while to figure out

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

2017-06-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Right. I think it's a usability fail as it is; it certainly fooled me. We > could make the error messages and documentation more clear. But even better > to allow multiple host addresses, so that it works as you'd

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

2017-06-09 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 06/08/2017 06:18 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas 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

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

2017-06-09 Thread Mithun Cy
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Hmm, there is one problem with our current use of comma as a separator: you > cannot use a Unix-domain socket directory that has a comma in the name, > because it's interpreted as multiple hostnames. E.g. this doesn't

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

2017-06-09 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 06/08/2017 06:39 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: These are already failing so I'd agree that explicit rejection isn't necessary - the question seems restricted to usability. Though I suppose we need to consider whether there is any problem with the current setup if indeed our intended separator

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

2017-06-08 Thread David G. Johnston
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > 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

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

2017-06-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas 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

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

2017-06-08 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas 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

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

2017-06-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > So, this is all quite confusing. I think we should support a list of > hostaddrs, to go with the list of hostnames. It seems like a strange > omission. Looking at the archives, it was mentioned a few times when this >

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

2017-06-08 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas writes: > So, this is all quite confusing. I think we should support a list of > hostaddrs, to go with the list of hostnames. It seems like a strange > omission. +1, if it's not too large a patch. It could be argued that this is a new feature and should