Sam Mason <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hum, why is PG doing an (unchecked) atoi on the user specified port > rather than leaving it up to getaddrinfo to resolve the port? It would > seem to require changing UNIXSOCK_PATH to accept a string as the "port > number", which is probably a bit much of a change. > The included doesn't feel very nice, but is probably more acceptable. Applied, thanks. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
