Thread: non-ipv6 vs hostnames
Accidentally specifying an IPv6 address in pg_hba.conf on a system that doesn't have ipv6 support gives the following error: LOG: specifying both host name and CIDR mask is invalid: "::1/128" Which is obviously wrong, because I didn't do that. Do we need to detect and special-case ipv6 addresses in this case? FWIW, the line was simply: host replication all ::1/128 trust -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> Accidentally specifying an IPv6 address in pg_hba.conf on a system
> that doesn't have ipv6 support gives the following error:
> LOG: specifying both host name and CIDR mask is invalid: "::1/128"
> Which is obviously wrong, because I didn't do that. Do we need to
> detect and special-case ipv6 addresses in this case?
Doesn't really seem worth going out of our way for that. Systems with
no IPv6 support are a dying breed, and will be more so by the time 9.2
gets deployed.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 16:12, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >> Accidentally specifying an IPv6 address in pg_hba.conf on a system >> that doesn't have ipv6 support gives the following error: > >> LOG: specifying both host name and CIDR mask is invalid: "::1/128" > >> Which is obviously wrong, because I didn't do that. Do we need to >> detect and special-case ipv6 addresses in this case? > > Doesn't really seem worth going out of our way for that. Systems with > no IPv6 support are a dying breed, and will be more so by the time 9.2 > gets deployed. Well, I got this on a win64 build. It's *supposed* to have ipv6. I wonder if it breaks on windows just because there is no ipv6 address on the machine... Unfortunately I shut the machine down and won't have time to test more right now, but I'll try to figure that out later unless beaten to it... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On tis, 2011-08-16 at 16:17 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Well, I got this on a win64 build. It's *supposed* to have ipv6. I > wonder if it breaks on windows just because there is no ipv6 address > on the machine... It would mean that getaddrinfo() of "::1" failed. That seems weird.
> On tis, 2011-08-16 at 16:17 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Well, I got this on a win64 build. It's *supposed* to have ipv6. I > > wonder if it breaks on windows just because there is no ipv6 address > > on the machine... > > It would mean that getaddrinfo() of "::1" failed. That seems weird. > A system admin can set registry keys to disable IPv6, either partially (allowing ::1), or totally (all IPv6 addresses fail). If the system has IPv6 enabled, it's not possible for there to be no ipv6 address. There is always the link-local addressof each LAN adapter.
On ons, 2011-08-17 at 13:12 -0400, Charles.McDevitt@emc.com wrote: > > On tis, 2011-08-16 at 16:17 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > Well, I got this on a win64 build. It's *supposed* to have ipv6. I > > > wonder if it breaks on windows just because there is no ipv6 address > > > on the machine... > > > > It would mean that getaddrinfo() of "::1" failed. That seems weird. > > > > A system admin can set registry keys to disable IPv6, either partially (allowing ::1), or totally (all IPv6 addresses fail). > > If the system has IPv6 enabled, it's not possible for there to be no ipv6 address. There is always the link-local addressof each LAN adapter. The problem here is that the system cannot *parse* the address "::1". This should not have anything to do with which addresses exist or could exist.