Thread: Switching to c-ares for pgbouncer?
Hi, I was reading this: https://redmine.postgresql.org/issues/1444 Any objections for switching to c-ares for pgbouncer? From packaging point of view, I confirmed that c-ares is available for all supported distros, but I'm not sure about the implications. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR
Attachment
> On Jul 12, 2016, at 8:09 AM, Devrim Gündüz <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote: > > > Hi, > > I was reading this: > > https://redmine.postgresql.org/issues/1444 > > Any objections for switching to c-ares for pgbouncer? From packaging point of > view, I confirmed that c-ares is available for all supported distros, but I'm > not sure about the implications. If the chart is to be believed, the only issue is: ipv6+CNAME buggy in <=1.10 Do you know which versions are standard in the supported distros these days?
Hi Jeff, On Tue, 2016-07-12 at 08:14 -0700, Jeff Frost wrote: > If the chart is to be believed, the only issue is: > > ipv6+CNAME buggy in <=1.10 > > Do you know which versions are standard in the supported distros these days? RHEL 5: 1.6.0 RHEL 6, RHEL 7, Fedora 22, Fedora 23: 1.10.0 Fedora 24, rawhide: 1.11.0 Quick note: Even though CNAME+IPv6 is buggy, that feature even does not exist in libevent (at least this is what I understand from the chart ("ipv4 only")), so we are not introducing new bugs here. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR
Attachment
> On Jul 12, 2016, at 8:31 AM, Devrim Gündüz <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote: > > > Hi Jeff, > > On Tue, 2016-07-12 at 08:14 -0700, Jeff Frost wrote: >> If the chart is to be believed, the only issue is: >> >> ipv6+CNAME buggy in <=1.10 >> >> Do you know which versions are standard in the supported distros these days? > > RHEL 5: 1.6.0 > RHEL 6, RHEL 7, Fedora 22, Fedora 23: 1.10.0 > Fedora 24, rawhide: 1.11.0 > > Quick note: Even though CNAME+IPv6 is buggy, that feature even does not exist > in libevent (at least this is what I understand from the chart ("ipv4 only")), > so we are not introducing new bugs here. Sounds like at least nobody could be using ipv6 with cnames on the current setup, so I agree, it seems fine.