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").
>
>
Aha! Pardon me while I giggle.
>
>
>>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...)
>
>
>
>
We could do it if we tested the addr.ai_family first, and only did it in
the IPv4 case. I agree calling getaddrinfo is overkill for masks.
cheers
andrew
