Re: Someone's broken psql's connection-failure error reporting

From: Kurt Roeckx <Q(at)ping(dot)be>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Someone's broken psql's connection-failure error reporting
Date: 2003-02-14 17:21:34
Message-ID: 20030214172134.GA2857@ping.be
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:55:23PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I've done a little bit of cleanup, but that code is still a mess...
> >> someone should rewrite these routines.
>
> > Yes, I looked at it and struggled to get both IPv4 and IPv6 cleanly
> > working. Any ideas on how to improve it?
>
> The major problem is the huge amount of #ifdefs, most of which seem to
> come from the fact that we deal with a list of possible addresses in
> one case and not the other. It would help a lot if we fixed things so
> that we dealt with a list in either case --- only a one-element list,
> if we don't have getaddrinfo, but getaddrinfo2 could hide that and
> provide a uniform API regardless.

I'm actually working on getting rid of all those #ifdef's, but
it's going slowly. (I have very little free time.)

Kurt

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Browne 2003-02-14 17:32:37 Re: Incremental backup
Previous Message Martin Coxall 2003-02-14 16:57:58 Re: location of the configuration files