Re: pgsql: Remove check for accept() argument types

I wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> What does the man page say the correct type
>> would be? size_t?

> The machine's not booted up right now :-(. But I'm pretty sure we
> shouldn't consider using size_t here, as it's not real clear that that
> couldn't be 64 bits on any affected platforms. Your previous research
> said that the desired type is 32 bits on all such platforms, so I think
> that "int" is correct; we need only debate signedness.

Hmm ... now that I'm in my office, I checked this and HPUX 10.20's
accept(2) man page saith

SYNOPSIS
#include <sys/socket.h>

AF_CCITT only
#include <x25/x25addrstr.h>

int accept(int s, void *addr, int *addrlen);

_XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED only
int accept(int s, struct sockaddr *addr, size_t *addrlen);

gaur is using -D_XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED and hence building against the
latter definition. (I found out quite a long time ago that without
_XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED, this platform has a LOT of discrepancies from
SUS v2.) Further down, there's

FUTURE DIRECTION
The default behavior in this release is still the classic HP-UX BSD
Sockets, however it will be changed to X/Open Sockets in some future
release. At that time, any HP-UX BSD Sockets behavior which is
incompatible with X/Open Sockets may be obsoleted. HP customers are
advised to migrate their applications to conform to X/Open
specification (see xopen_networking(7)).

So what it looks like to me is

(1) Original BSD Sockets defined the argument as "int *addrlen".
(I confirmed this by looking in an ancient copy of Stevens'
Unix Network Programming.)

(2) X/Open thought it'd be better to use size_t.

(3) POSIX decided to resolve the conflict by inventing socklen_t.
However, SUS v2 says specifically that socklen_t "is an unsigned opaque
integral type of length of at least 32 bits". The "unsigned" part
was removed in later POSIX editions, which surprises me --- they don't
usually change the standard in the direction of less definiteness.

On the whole, I still think "unsigned int" is our best compromise.
But maybe we should use size_t and cite X/Open as authority.

regards, tom lane