Re: [HACKERS] Stuff that doesn't work yet in IPv6 patch

2004-03-09 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom, do you know how many of these issue are still open? --- Tom Lane wrote: > The IPv6 patch seems to still be a few bricks shy of a load. Grepping > for places that handle AF_INET but not AF_INET6 revealed these > unimple

Re: [HACKERS] Stuff that doesn't work yet in IPv6 patch

2004-03-09 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom, do you know how many of these issue are still open? Uh, none of them, I would hope. That message was a long time ago. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't

Re: [HACKERS] Stuff that doesn't work yet in IPv6 patch

2003-08-17 Thread Andreas Pflug
Bruce Momjian wrote: 2. SSL. Postmaster allows SSL for AF_INET but not AF_INET6. This is fixed and works now. Regards, Andreas ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail co

Re: [HACKERS] Stuff that doesn't work yet in IPv6 patch

2003-08-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
Are these IPv6 deficiencies addressed? --- Tom Lane wrote: > The IPv6 patch seems to still be a few bricks shy of a load. Grepping > for places that handle AF_INET but not AF_INET6 revealed these > unimplemented features: >

Re: [HACKERS] Stuff that doesn't work yet in IPv6 patch

2003-04-06 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 12:12:57PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I find it so weird, why isn't it just using socketpair() or > > something? > > Checking the HPUX man page for it, I read "socketpair() is supported > only for AF_UNIX", which suggests that it's

Re: [HACKERS] Stuff that doesn't work yet in IPv6 patch

2003-04-05 Thread Tom Lane
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I find it so weird, why isn't it just using socketpair() or > something? Portability issues, perhaps. Does socketpair exist and behave the same everywhere? Checking the HPUX man page for it, I read "socketpair() is supported only for AF_UNIX", which sugg

Re: [HACKERS] Stuff that doesn't work yet in IPv6 patch

2003-04-05 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 06:37:17PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> 4. pgstat code can only bind to 127.0.0.1 (v4 loopback). On a v6-only > >> machine this would not exist, would it? > > > I'm not sure, but I think I changed something about that. Can > > you point me to that code? > > src/backend

Re: [HACKERS] Stuff that doesn't work yet in IPv6 patch

2003-04-04 Thread Tom Lane
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 2. SSL. Postmaster allows SSL for AF_INET but not AF_INET6. > Hmm, it really shouldn't matter if it uses AF_INET or AF_INET6 > ... I should look into that. Yeah, I suspect it just needs to replace the == AF_INET test with an isAF_INETx() test. But I d

Re: [HACKERS] Stuff that doesn't work yet in IPv6 patch

2003-04-04 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 04:47:45PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > The IPv6 patch seems to still be a few bricks shy of a load. Grepping > for places that handle AF_INET but not AF_INET6 revealed these > unimplemented features: > > 1. IDENT authorization. Fails if either local or remote address is IPv6

[HACKERS] Stuff that doesn't work yet in IPv6 patch

2003-04-03 Thread Tom Lane
The IPv6 patch seems to still be a few bricks shy of a load. Grepping for places that handle AF_INET but not AF_INET6 revealed these unimplemented features: 1. IDENT authorization. Fails if either local or remote address is IPv6. 2. SSL. Postmaster allows SSL for AF_INET but not AF_INET6. 3.