Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>
Cc: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>,"Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Advocacy" <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report
Date: 2003-01-30 16:28:41
Message-ID: 19952.1043944121@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> writes:
> What about cases where I only want one or the other? Would a simple method 
> exist to limit input to v4 or v6 only?

I would assume we'd add a test function like is_v6(inet).  Given that,
you could add a check constraint "is_v6(col)" or "NOT is_v6(col)" to
any column that you want to restrict.

> Also, what are the implications to functions such as network_sub, 
> network_cmp, etc. when given mixed v4/v6 inputs as could easily happen if the
> two are freely mixed in the same data type?

We have to work out what the semantics should be.  I don't know anything
about v6, but I'd imagine v4 addresses form a defined subset of the v6
address space ... if so the semantics seem pretty straightforward.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-01-30 17:07:08
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL, NetBSD and NFS
Previous:From: Steve CrawfordDate: 2003-01-30 16:22:05
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Jason HihnDate: 2003-01-30 17:19:51
Subject: Re: Oracle CEO on the limits of open-source databases.
Previous:From: Steve CrawfordDate: 2003-01-30 16:22:05
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group