On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Having said that, the behavior stated in $subject does sound wrong. > >> I'm not sure. My understanding of the relationship between host and >> hostaddr is that hostaddr overrides our notion of where to find host, >> but not our notion of the host to which we're connecting. Under that >> definition, the current behavior as described by Kyotaro sounds >> correct. > > Perhaps. But hostaddr also forces us to believe that we're making an > IP connection, so it still seems pretty dubious to return a socket > path. The true situation is that we're connecting to an IP host that > we do not know the name of.
Yes, I think that's a reasonable interpretation. > I notice that one of the recent changes was made to avoid situations where > PQhost() would return NULL and thereby provoke a crash if the application > wasn't expecting that (which is not unreasonable of it, since the PQhost() > documentation mentions no such hazard). So I would not want to see us > return NULL in this case. > > And I believe we already considered and rejected the idea of having it > return the hostaddr string, back in some of the older discussions. > (We could revisit that decision, no doubt, but let's go back and see > what the reasoning was first.) > > But maybe returning an empty string ("") would be OK? Yeah, that might be OK. But I'd be inclined not to back-patch any behavior changes we make in this area unless it's clear that 9.6 regressed relative to previous releases. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers