Re: libpq port number handling

Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.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.

Applied, thanks.

            regards, tom lane