Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: andrew(at)supernews(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess
Date: 2006-01-25 23:02:44
Message-ID: 87bqxzud0r.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews(at)supernews(dot)com> writes:

> On 2006-01-25, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> > This isn't an obscure old-fashioned thing. People really do use this syntax.
>
> Given how little code now supports 10.1 meaning 10.0.0.1, that seems a
> questionable point.

I've reported the bug in the one instance I've found.
What have you found with this omission?

It would be passing strange since most software just passes the text to
inet_aton or inet_pton.

Incidentally I mixed up getaddrinfo and inet_pton in a previous message. Sorry
for the confusion.

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew - Supernews 2006-01-25 23:42:51 Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2006-01-25 22:46:35 Re: Backslashes in string literals