Re: [HACKERS] Proposed patch to getaddrinfo.c to support

I don't understand this proposed patch. Pulling in more headers, when
they aren't needed, shouldn't change the behavior of the code...
What am I missing?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 4:03 PM
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: Petr Jelinek; pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org;
dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk;
> Bruce Momjian; Chuck McDevitt
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposed patch to getaddrinfo.c to support
>
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >Petr Jelinek <pjmodos(at)seznam(dot)cz> writes:
> >
> >
> >>Yep those changes proposed in my previous email fixes IPv4 too.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Apparently not on loris (unless there was another patch that I
missed).
> >Maybe something to do with a different version of Windows?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> I suspected we'd forgotten something.
>
> The attached small patch appears to be what's required (at least on
> loris). "make check" failed but not for any apparent ipv6 reason.
More
> importantly, we correctly set HAVE_IPV6 and HAVE_STRUCT_ADDRINFO.
>
> cheers
>
> andrew