From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "R, Rajesh (STSD)" <rajesh(dot)r2(at)hp(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Better way to check for getaddrinfo function. |
Date: | 2006-01-19 21:56:17 |
Message-ID: | 200601192156.k0JLuHe29360@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Where are we on this? Rajesh, I think we are waiting for more
information from you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
R, Rajesh (STSD) wrote:
>
> That was very much situation specific.
> But the bottomline is the default test does not include <netdb.h> in the
> test code.
> So, pg uses getaddrinfo.c.And the getaddrinfo.c does not work for me.
> Ipv6 client authenciation fails.
>
> I have modified the patch.
>
> $ diff -r configure.in configure.in.new
> 918a919
> > AC_MSG_CHECKING([for getaddrinfo])
> 920c921,926
> < AC_REPLACE_FUNCS([getaddrinfo])
> ---
> > AC_TRY_LINK([#include <netdb.h> #include <assert.h>],
> > [char (*f)();f=getaddrinfo;],
> > ac_cv_func_getaddrinfo=yes, ac_cv_func_getaddrinfo=no)
> > if test x"$ac_cv_func_getaddrinfo" = xyes; then
> > AC_DEFINE(HAVE_GETADDRINFO,1,[Define if you have the getaddrinfo
> function])
> > fi
> 923a930
> > AC_MSG_RESULT([$ac_cv_func_getaddrinfo])
>
>
> Rajesh R
> --
> This space intentionally left non-blank.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:28 PM
> To: R, Rajesh (STSD)
> Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [PATCH] Better way to check for getaddrinfo
> function.
>
> "R, Rajesh (STSD)" <rajesh(dot)r2(at)hp(dot)com> writes:
> > Just thought that the following patch might improve checking for
> > getaddrinfo function (in configure.in)
>
> Since AC_TRY_RUN tests cannot work in cross-compilation scenarios, you
> need an *extremely* good reason to put one in. "I thought this might
> improve things" doesn't qualify. Exactly what problem are you trying to
> solve and why is a run-time test necessary? Why doesn't the existing
> coding work for you?
>
> regards, tom lane <<configure-in.patch>>
Content-Description: configure-in.patch
[ Attachment, skipping... ]
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Doug McNaught | 2006-01-19 21:59:30 | Re: Upgrade Problem: 7.4.3 -> 8.1.2 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-01-19 21:43:03 | Re: Connections not closing |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2006-01-19 21:58:31 | Re: un-vacuum? |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-01-19 21:48:28 | Re: suppress output for benchmarking |