| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kurt Roeckx <Q(at)ping(dot)be>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, akavan(at)cox(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Stats Collector Error 7.4beta1 and 7.4beta2 |
| Date: | 2003-09-05 17:02:07 |
| Message-ID: | 556.1062781327@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> What I'm wondering about is whether we are comparing the right number of
>> bytes ... have both address structs been reported to have the same
>> length? Maybe we need a min().
> I disagree. If getsockname(), getpeername() or recvfrom() return
> different address length's, it'd be more an indicator that the addresses
> ARE different anyway.
Hm, good point. But I still feel that we are jumping to a conclusion
without understanding what's going on. I'd like to know *why* the
addresses are different on Adam's machine, before we conclude that we
mustn't try to check that they are the same.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-05 17:08:15 | Re: 64-bit pgsql |
| Previous Message | Kurt Roeckx | 2003-09-05 17:01:37 | Re: Stats Collector Error 7.4beta1 and 7.4beta2 |