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

Re: performance modality in 7.1 for large text attributes?

From: Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: performance modality in 7.1 for large text attributes?
Date: 2000-12-20 18:44:35
Message-ID: 20001220124435.A19010@lerami.lerctr.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* Paul A Vixie <vixie(at)mfnx(dot)net> [001220 10:28]:
> > Question is whether proper (standard/most-commonly-used) format for
> > printing CIDR network address is 10/8 or 10.0.0.0/8 (i.e. should all
> > octets be printed even if they are 0). After search of RFCs, there's
> > nothing that specifies the standard, but 10.0.0.0/8 is used more often in
> > examples than 10/8 form.
> > 
> > Postgres uses 10/8 form, and I'm saying that 10.0.0.0/8 is more accepted
> > by everyone else. (I.E. all software can deal with that, but not all
> > software accepts 10/8).
> 
> cisco IOS just won't take 10/8 and insists on 10.0.0.0/8.  you will never,
> ever go wrong if you try to use 10.0.0.0/8, since everything that understands
> CIDR understands that.  10/8 is a pleasant-appearing alternative format, but
> it is not universally accepted and i recommend against it.  (i'm not sure if
> my original CIDR type implementation for pgsql output the shorthand or not;
> if it did, then i apologize to one and all.)
There was no way, prior to 7.1, to get all 4 octets printed using the
original code. 

Thanks for clearing up the info. 

Larry Rosenman
-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812                 E-Mail: ler(at)lerctr(dot)org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2000-12-20 19:02:42
Subject: Re: day 2 results
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-12-20 18:28:57
Subject: Re: day 2 results

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