On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 17:16, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <[email protected]> writes: >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 17:04, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I think what this shows is we should look for a way to avoid using >>> INADDR_NONE. > >>> From some more googling >> (http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/inet_addr.html), >> it says it will return (in_addr_t)(-1), though, so maybe we should >> just move that #ifdef out to some global place? > > Given the way that's written, I think we should just compare the result > to (in_addr_t)(-1), and not assume there's any macro provided for that.
Well, that doesn't match all other platforms.. > However, now that I know the real issue is you're using inet_addr, I > would like to know why you're not using inet_aton instead; or even > better, something that also copes with IPv6. "Path of least resistance?" Which method would you suggest? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
