| 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: | 2009-09-25 00:36:08 |
| Message-ID: | 2497.1253838968@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-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.
I had been thinking about applying strstr to insist that the string
contain only digits (and maybe spaces), but the range check you suggest
is probably more useful. Anyone have objections? (BTW, are port
numbers still limited to 16 bits in IPv6? If not then this won't do.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-25 00:41:24 | Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling |
| Previous Message | Lew | 2009-09-25 00:17:43 | Re: What is the difference of foreign key? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-25 00:41:24 | Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling |
| Previous Message | Stef Walter | 2009-09-25 00:32:34 | Re: pg_hba.conf: samehost and samenet [REVIEW] |