Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions

On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 11:35 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> To do anything interesting, the test would have to make the server
> open a TCP port, which would be rightly seen as a security hazard.
> So it'd have to be confined to a not-run-by-default test case.

Yeah.

> Maybe we could add this to the existing src/test/ssl/ tests,
> which already deal with that hazard?

That seems okay in the short term. (But it certainly highlights our
lack of a "PG_TEST_EXTRA=loopback-is-fine" mode...)

--Jacob