| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: duplicate connection failure messages |
| Date: | 2010-11-20 20:43:29 |
| Message-ID: | 201011202043.oAKKhTs01861@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > I was wondering that. I am unclear if we need it though --- can we not
> > assume inet_ntop() exists on all systems? We assumed inet_ntoa() did.
>
> The Single Unix Spec includes inet_ntoa but not inet_ntop.
>
> > Of course, the buildfarm will tell us.
>
> The buildfarm unfortunately contains only a subset of the platforms
> we care about. I don't think this problem is large enough to justify
> taking a portability risk by depending on non-SUS library functions.
>
> If you want to do this, please do it as suggested previously, ie depend
> on the copy of the code we have internally.
I assume you are suggesting to use our inet_net_ntop() even if the
system has inet_ntop().
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-20 20:51:39 | Re: Fwd: What do these terms mean in the SOURCE CODE? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-20 20:21:20 | Re: [PATCH] Custom code int(32|64) => text conversions out of performance reasons |