Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling
Date: 2009-09-27 03:43:42
Message-ID: 15238.1254023022@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> writes:
> Hum, why is PG doing an (unchecked) atoi on the user specified port
> rather than leaving it up to getaddrinfo to resolve the port?  It would
> seem to require changing UNIXSOCK_PATH to accept a string as the "port
> number", which is probably a bit much of a change.

> The included doesn't feel very nice, but is probably more acceptable.

Applied, thanks.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2009-09-27 03:44:02
Subject: Re: TODO item: Allow more complex user/database default GUC settings
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-09-27 03:29:06
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Unicode escapes in E'...' strings Author: Marko Kreen

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-09-27 04:41:47
Subject: Re: Idle processes chewing up CPU?
Previous:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2009-09-27 03:18:56
Subject: Re: psql: FATAL: role "postgres" does not exist

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group