Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> > I thought the report was that *only* 255.255.255.255 failed. The
> > question is why?
>
> The impression I got was that some internal subroutine of getaddrinfo
> had a broken error-handling convention (ie, "return a numeric address
> value or -1 on error").
>
> > And would changing the hints passed to getaddrinfo_all
> > improve matters (e.g. by filling in the ai_family with the value from
> > the addr structure we already have)?
>
> Seems unlikely. I suppose you could argue that we shouldn't be using
> getaddrinfo on the netmask field at all; there's certainly not any value
> in doing a DNS lookup on it, for instance. Maybe we should go back to
> using plain ol' inet_aton for it? (Nah, won't handle IPv6...)
Uh, we are passing 255.255.255.255 to getaddrinfo()? Why would we do that?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073