Re: do we need inet_ntop check?

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: do we need inet_ntop check?
Date: 2005-08-17 20:50:53
Message-ID: 4303A32D.7070603@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

>AFAICT, all we actually depend
>on to compile the #ifdef HAVE_IPV6 code is (a) struct sockaddr_in6 and
>(b) the macro AF_INET6. Arguably we should have an explicit test for
>the latter, but unless someone exhibits a header file that has the
>struct but not the macro, the struct test seems sufficient.
>
>I'll remove the configure test. I assume you want it gone from the 8.0
>branch too...
>
>
>
>

Yes please.

Unfortunately, this doesn't get us over the IPv6 hump on Windows, not
even if we include ws2tcpip.h.

It appears that we need either to pull in getaddrinfo from ws2_32.dll
(which Windows platforms have this? It should be available for them all,
according to MSDN). or make out own routines decipher ipv6 addresses.
So far today I haven't had any luck with the former.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2005-08-17 20:58:19 Re: Missing CONCURRENT VACUUM (Was: Release notes for
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-08-17 20:45:36 Re: Missing CONCURRENT VACUUM (Was: Release notes for