From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 7.4.3 & 8.0.0beta1 + Solaris 9: default pg_hba.conf breaks |
Date: | 2004-08-18 16:16:35 |
Message-ID: | 1457.1092845795@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> I thought the report was that *only* 255.255.255.255 failed. The
> question is why?
The impression I got was that some internal subroutine of getaddrinfo
had a broken error-handling convention (ie, "return a numeric address
value or -1 on error").
> And would changing the hints passed to getaddrinfo_all
> improve matters (e.g. by filling in the ai_family with the value from
> the addr structure we already have)?
Seems unlikely. I suppose you could argue that we shouldn't be using
getaddrinfo on the netmask field at all; there's certainly not any value
in doing a DNS lookup on it, for instance. Maybe we should go back to
using plain ol' inet_aton for it? (Nah, won't handle IPv6...)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | markw | 2004-08-18 16:17:09 | Automated Testing with PostgreSQL-8.0.0beta1 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-18 16:10:20 | Re: [HACKERS] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-08-18 16:38:34 | Re: 7.4.3 & 8.0.0beta1 + Solaris 9: default pg_hba.conf breaks |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-08-18 16:00:06 | Re: 7.4.3 & 8.0.0beta1 + Solaris 9: default pg_hba.conf |