From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Remove check for accept() argument types
In-reply-to: <3863895c-d40b-4154-de8f-4961386b2515@enterprisedb.com>
References: <E1mkSdp-0008FH-7Y@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <1440792.1636558888@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <3863895c-d40b-4154-de8f-4961386b2515@enterprisedb.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
	message dated "Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:16:25 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1683238.1636726865.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 09:21:05 -0500
Message-ID: <1683239.1636726865@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1683239.1636726865%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On 10.11.21 16:41, Tom Lane wrote:
>> May I suggest that "unsigned int" would be a better choice
>> than "int" for socklen_t?

> I have been waiting for a few more buildfarm members to finish (mainly 
> the other AIX and HPUX instances), but they appear to be on strike right 
> now.

I waited to see one of the AIX 7.1 instances report, and it does have
socklen_t.  So the only old buildfarm members that any uncertainty
remains about are the HPUX 11 ones.  Probably those have socklen_t;
but if they don't, given that we know HPUX 10 wants "unsigned int",
it seems certain that 11 would too.  So I went ahead and pushed that
change yesterday.

> What does the man page say the correct type 
> would be?  size_t?

The machine's not booted up right now :-(.  But I'm pretty sure we
shouldn't consider using size_t here, as it's not real clear that that
couldn't be 64 bits on any affected platforms.  Your previous research
said that the desired type is 32 bits on all such platforms, so I think
that "int" is correct; we need only debate signedness.

			regards, tom lane