Re: Redefining inet_net_ntop - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Redefining inet_net_ntop
Date
Msg-id 32014.1516945427@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Redefining inet_net_ntop  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Should we be using our own if the OS has it? I'm thinking of adding a test
> to configure and omitting our own version if configure finds it. Objections?

I can't imagine that there's any real upside here.  The amount of code
involved is barely over a kilobyte, and we'd be exposing ourselves to
indeterminate version discrepancies.

Having said that, we got that code from bind, and the release process docs
suggest that we should check for upstream changes every so often.  I don't
think we've done so in a long time :-(

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki"
Date:
Subject: RE: Temporary tables prevent autovacuum, leading to XID wraparound
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)