Thread: Stuff that doesn't work yet in IPv6 patch
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. Client address display in backend's ps display seems to be v4 only.
4. pgstat code can only bind to 127.0.0.1 (v4 loopback). On a v6-only machine this would not exist, would it?
regards, tom lane
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. I've actually written this already. > 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. > 3. Client address display in backend's ps display seems to be v4 only. I'll take a look at that too. > 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? Kurt
Kurt Roeckx <Q@ping.be> 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 don't have the facilities here to
verify it.
>> 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/postmaster/pgstat.c
regards, tom lane
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/postmaster/pgstat.c That was the code I was thinking it was. I changed the code already. I find it so weird, why isn't it just using socketpair() or something? Kurt
Kurt Roeckx <Q@ping.be> 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 suggests that it's not possible to get datagram
semantics from it, at least on this platform.
regards, tom lane
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 12:12:57PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx <Q@ping.be> 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 not possible to get datagram
> semantics from it, at least on this platform.
SUS says that only AF_UNIX should be supported too:
The socketpair() function is used primarily with UNIX domain sockets and need not be supported for other
domains.
That does not prevent you to set the type to either SOCK_STREAM
or SOCK_DGRAM, or even SOCK_SEQPACKET however.
Kurt
Kurt Roeckx <Q@ping.be> writes:
> SUS says that only AF_UNIX should be supported too:
> The socketpair() function is used primarily with UNIX domain
> sockets and need not be supported for other domains.
Well, that just begs the question: does it even exist on platforms
that don't support AF_UNIX (eg, Windows, BeOS, ...)? If so, what
address family to use there?
regards, tom lane
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: > > 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. Client address display in backend's ps display seems to be v4 only. > > 4. pgstat code can only bind to 127.0.0.1 (v4 loopback). On a v6-only > machine this would not exist, would it? > > regards, tom lane > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
Bruce Momjian wrote: >>2. SSL. Postmaster allows SSL for AF_INET but not AF_INET6. >> This is fixed and works now. Regards, Andreas
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 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
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 > 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. Client address display in backend's ps display seems to be v4 only. > > 4. pgstat code can only bind to 127.0.0.1 (v4 loopback). On a v6-only > machine this would not exist, would it? > > regards, tom lane > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073