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").
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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
