Re: [HACKERS] non-ipv6 vs hostnames

2011-08-17 Thread Charles.McDevitt
 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.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] non-ipv6 vs hostnames

2011-08-17 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On ons, 2011-08-17 at 13:12 -0400, charles.mcdev...@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.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


[HACKERS] non-ipv6 vs hostnames

2011-08-16 Thread Magnus Hagander
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:
hostreplication all ::1/128 trust

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] non-ipv6 vs hostnames

2011-08-16 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander mag...@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

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] non-ipv6 vs hostnames

2011-08-16 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 16:12, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
 Magnus Hagander mag...@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/

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] non-ipv6 vs hostnames

2011-08-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers