Re: back branches vs. VS 2008
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: back branches vs. VS 2008 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4D232EF2.6000109@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: back branches vs. VS 2008 (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/04/2011 04:43 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> OK, what's going here is that, in the newer SDK, IPV6_V6ONLY is defined >> unconditionally, but IPPROTO_IPV6 is only defined if _WIN32_WINNT is set to >> 0x0501 or higher. We defined _WIN32_WINNT as 0x0500 until 9.0, when we >> changed it specifically to allow use of the right IPV6 settings. > I wonder if anything else changed with that #define, though. Probably. I'm not going to suggest turning it on at this stage. There are lots of references to this specific OS level in the headers. > >> This seems to me like a clear error in the MS headers. I don't think it >> makes any sense to define the settings constant but not the context >> constant. The fix I have suggested above doesn't seem unreasonable or >> terribly unsafe in these circumstances. The code clearly contemplates the >> setsockopt() call in question not having been run, as shown in this comment: > Yeah, it seems reasonable - I assume you tested it and it doesn't fail > in some *different* way than the one we expect in the code? > Yes, I enabled IPV6 and set listen_addresses to * an no untoward events appeared. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: