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

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

From: "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>
To: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>,Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 12:53:51
Message-ID: 200301300753.51937.darcy@druid.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
On Thursday 30 January 2003 07:42, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> Different storage for ipv4 vs. ipv6 (why punish ipv4 users with an extra
> 96 bits of storage?). Use of ipv4 and ipv6 should be mutually
> exclusive. Extra code in inet type causing bloat.

The inet code has been designed from day one to handle ipv6.  It was assumed 
that the extra glue would be added when it was needed.  I don't see any 
reason to change that.  I also don't think it adds an extra 12 bytes to ipv4 
addresses if you do.  The type is variable size if I recall correctly.

Certainly we don't want people to have two different fields for the same piece 
of information, an IP address.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at){druid|vex}.net>   |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Rod TaylorDate: 2003-01-30 12:55:26
Subject: Re: v7.2.4 bundled ...
Previous:From: Gavin SherryDate: 2003-01-30 12:42:13
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-01-30 14:48:37
Subject: Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report
Previous:From: Gavin SherryDate: 2003-01-30 12:42:13
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report

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