--On Tuesday, January 07, 2003 11:51:44 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please make sure that you can handle the situation of a IPv6 API, but no IPv6Rocco Altier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:Another idea is to have the -i take an optional argument. Something where -i means bind to both v4 and v6, and -i4 means to only v4, and -i6 to only v6.I don't see why we need any such thing. The current behavior of the postmaster (assuming -i or tcpip_socket is set) is:1. By default: bind to all IPs on the machine. 2. If virtual_host is set: bind only to that one IP. It seems to me that in a machine with both v4 and v6 IP addresses, the natural extension is that the default behavior is to bind to all of them, or if virtual_host is set then bind to only that one, be it v4 or v6. (Does the existing patch work with virtual_host identifying a v6 IP? If not, that's certainly a bug.) No one has offered any scenario in which it's important to bind to only v4 or only v6 addresses when both are present. In the absence of a compelling argument why that would be useful, I do not see why we're worrying. My own thought is that if I wanted to constrain PG to bind to a subset of a machine's addresses, the extension I'd want is to allow virtual_host to contain a list of names or IP addresses --- of either version. Basing it on v4 versus v6 has no payback that I can see.
stack. (E.G. UnixWare up to at least 7.1.3).
regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
-- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
