Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions
Date: 2025-01-20 20:20:05
Message-ID: CAOYmi+k2X_YzGxN=+d377++Na-6RgzOv2hiD+zyMymAMRuicKA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 11:35 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> To do anything interesting, the test would have to make the server
> open a TCP port, which would be rightly seen as a security hazard.
> So it'd have to be confined to a not-run-by-default test case.

Yeah.

> Maybe we could add this to the existing src/test/ssl/ tests,
> which already deal with that hazard?

That seems okay in the short term. (But it certainly highlights our
lack of a "PG_TEST_EXTRA=loopback-is-fine" mode...)

--Jacob

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2025-01-20 20:27:21 Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2025-01-20 20:15:43 Re: Re: proposal: schema variables