Re: strange problem with ip6 - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Andrew Sullivan
Subject Re: strange problem with ip6
Date
Msg-id 20070517170008.GQ6907@phlogiston.dyndns.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to strange problem with ip6  (Brian Hirt <bhirt@mobygames.com>)
Responses Re: strange problem with ip6  (Christian Kratzer <ck-lists@cksoft.de>)
Re: strange problem with ip6  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-bugs
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 06:42:39PM +0200, Christian Kratzer wrote:
> of a specific interface. This is why bsd based oprating systems append
> %ifname to the address so that they know which Interface this address

Oh, I forgot about that wart in RFC4007.  Thanks for the cluestick.

> There is propbaly not much point in using link local addreses for postgres.

I think that's not quite right.  For instance, JDBC can't use UNIX
domain sockets last I checked, and I can imagine using it in a
disconnected context where you'd want to emulate multiple connection
points.  Link local addresses would be perfect for this.  So I think
it might be a bug, because Postgres isn't accepting the address
specification for scoped addresses.  (In the local 8.1.x version I
have installed here, the inet type doesn't accept it either.) Now
that I re-read it, RFC4007 seems to be pretty clear that the scope
info is a necessary part of the addressing, so I don't think it can
be thrown away before looking at the address.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what
you told them to.  That actually seems sort of quaint now.
        --J.D. Baldwin

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Stephan Szabo
Date:
Subject: Re: ON DELETE CASCADE with multiple paths
Next
From: Christian Kratzer
Date:
Subject: Re: strange problem with ip6