Hi all,
the replication point is a good one, I did not think about that. However, I
still believe that on the road to v6 adoption, databases are far from being
our most pressing roadblock.
Thanks all!
Carlos
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Jerry B. Altzman wrote:
> Only to you.
> on 10/22/201
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Scott Reed wrote:
> Public or not, if someone wants to run IPv6 only, they shouldn't have to
> have the v4 stack just for the database. Databases must work on the v6
> stack.
amen. so isn't that a dba issue and not a netop issue? I subscribe to
postgresql-* list
Public or not, if someone wants to run IPv6 only, they shouldn't have to
have the v4 stack just for the database. Databases must work on the v6
stack.
On 10/22/2010 10:02 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
IMHO you should never, ever make your MySQL accesible over the public
Internet, which
IMHO you should never, ever make your MySQL accesible over the public
Internet, which renders the issue of MySQL not supporting IPv6 correctly
mostly irrelevant. You could even run your MySQL behind your web backend
using RFC1918 space (something I do recommend).
Moreover, if you need direct acces
On 10/21/10 2:59 PM, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Dan White wrote:
>
>> On 21/10/10 14:43 -0700, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>
>>> In a message written on Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 01:53:49PM -0700, Christopher
>>> McCrory wrote:
>>>
open to the world. After a few google
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Dan White wrote:
> On 21/10/10 14:43 -0700, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
>> In a message written on Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 01:53:49PM -0700, Christopher
>> McCrory wrote:
>>
>>> open to the world. After a few google searches, it seems that
>>> PostgreSQL is in a similar s
On 21/10/10 14:43 -0700, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 01:53:49PM -0700, Christopher
McCrory wrote:
open to the world. After a few google searches, it seems that
PostgreSQL is in a similar situation.
I don't know when PostgreSQL first supported IPv6, but it
In a message written on Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 01:53:49PM -0700, Christopher
McCrory wrote:
> open to the world. After a few google searches, it seems that
> PostgreSQL is in a similar situation.
I don't know when PostgreSQL first supported IPv6, but it works just
fine. I just fired up a stock
On 10/21/10 2:00 PM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 01:53:49PM -0700, Christopher McCrory wrote:
>> Network operations content:
>>
>> Will "We're running MySQL and Postgress servers that do not support
>> IPv6" be a valid reason for rejecting IPv6 addresses from ISPs or
>> hostin
On 10/21/2010 3:53 PM, Christopher McCrory wrote:
Network operations content:
Will "We're running MySQL and Postgress servers that do not support
IPv6" be a valid reason for rejecting IPv6 addresses from ISPs or
hosting providers?
Why not have v4 and v6? There's never a reason to reject v6,
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 01:53:49PM -0700, Christopher McCrory wrote:
> Network operations content:
>
> Will "We're running MySQL and Postgress servers that do not support
> IPv6" be a valid reason for rejecting IPv6 addresses from ISPs or
> hosting providers?
First, it's not like the fl
Hello...
I've been following the recent IPv6 threads with interest. I decided
to test the M in LAMP for IPv6 support (Although it was really a FreeBSD
server not Linux). It seems than only newer versions (5.5 rc) of MySQL
support IPv6 network connections. Worse is that although it will
acce
12 matches
Mail list logo
