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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-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

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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