From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 |
Date: | 2004-08-18 16:46:24 |
Message-ID: | 412387E0.70105@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
>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").
>
>
Aha! Pardon me while I giggle.
>
>
>>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...)
>
>
>
>
We could do it if we tested the addr.ai_family first, and only did it in
the IPv4 case. I agree calling getaddrinfo is overkill for masks.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-08-18 16:51:14 | Re: 7.4.3 & 8.0.0beta1 + Solaris 9: default pg_hba.conf |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-08-18 16:43:20 | Re: [HACKERS] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-08-18 16:51:14 | Re: 7.4.3 & 8.0.0beta1 + Solaris 9: default pg_hba.conf |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-08-18 16:38:34 | Re: 7.4.3 & 8.0.0beta1 + Solaris 9: default pg_hba.conf breaks |