From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Remove IS_AF_UNIX macro |
Date: | 2022-02-16 16:06:12 |
Message-ID: | 2c53ab2c-e14d-eb00-554e-5520bdbc8d3c@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On 15.02.22 16:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:
>> Remove IS_AF_UNIX macro
>> The AF_UNIX macro was being used unprotected by HAVE_UNIX_SOCKETS,
>> apparently since 2008.
>
> I hadn't looked closely at this patch, but are you referring to
> this bit in ip.h?
>
> #ifdef HAVE_UNIX_SOCKETS
> #define IS_AF_UNIX(fam) ((fam) == AF_UNIX)
> #else
> #define IS_AF_UNIX(fam) (0)
> #endif
>
> That's by no means "unprotected": we will not try to reference
> AF_UNIX unless HAVE_UNIX_SOCKETS is set.
In src/backend/utils/adt/pgstatfuncs.c there is a use of AF_UNIX that
has been there unprotected by any #ifdef since about 2008.
> We might as well just nuke
> all the HAVE_UNIX_SOCKETS conditional compilation if we let
> this stand.
>
> (Now, maybe we should indeed do that. I don't have much
> interest in the possibility that we'll worry about such
> platforms in future.)
Maybe/probably. But there is a difference between platforms having the
AF_UNIX symbol (which is required by POSIX unconditionally) and
platforms actually having Unix sockets or not (which might require
different default configurations or run-time behavior), so the two
questions are not that closely connected.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-02-16 16:13:35 | Re: pgsql: Remove IS_AF_UNIX macro |
Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-02-16 15:42:46 | Re: pgsql: Move scanint8() to numutils.c |