Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. clarification of my IRC comment: A quick examination seems to shaw
> that we use the native getaddrinfo() where it exists, otherwise we use
> our own, which in turn calls inet_ntoa().
> 2. ip6 has a well defined standard for abbreviation, and is quite
> important to have since ip6 addresses would otherwise often be tediously
> long. I haven't found a comparable standard for abbreviating IP4
> addresses.
AFAICS, Alex is quite far out in left field to believe that this is a
standard notation. The fact that some BSD platforms have accepted it
does not make it standard, especially not when Vixie's research shows
that there is no RFC to legitimize it. (Personally I never heard of
it before either, not that that proves much...)
> 4. My personal preference would be that if any change is made it would
> be to insist on an unabbreviated dotted quad for ip4.
I can't get excited about replacing or second-guessing the platform's
getaddrinfo() or inet_aton() implementation. If you don't like how
those library routines behave, forward your bug report appropriately
--- but it's not Postgres' problem.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
