Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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"). > > > 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...)
Uh, we are passing 255.255.255.255 to getaddrinfo()? Why would we do that? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
