| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-30 14:48:37 | Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |
| Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2003-01-30 12:42:13 | Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-01-30 12:55:26 | Re: v7.2.4 bundled ... |
| Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2003-01-30 12:42:13 | Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |