| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Redefining inet_net_ntop |
| Date: | 2018-01-26 05:43:47 |
| Message-ID: | 32014.1516945427@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Should we be using our own if the OS has it? I'm thinking of adding a test
> to configure and omitting our own version if configure finds it. Objections?
I can't imagine that there's any real upside here. The amount of code
involved is barely over a kilobyte, and we'd be exposing ourselves to
indeterminate version discrepancies.
Having said that, we got that code from bind, and the release process docs
suggest that we should check for upstream changes every so often. I don't
think we've done so in a long time :-(
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-01-26 06:00:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Previous Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2018-01-26 05:33:51 | RE: Temporary tables prevent autovacuum, leading to XID wraparound |