| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Patrick Welche <prlw1(at)newn(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: inet increment w/ int8 |
| Date: | 2005-05-23 15:55:01 |
| Message-ID: | 200505231555.j4NFt1o09103@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Douglas McNaught wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> > I modified the TODO. I think we only need an INT4. I realize INT8
> > would be for IPV6 but I can't imagine a network that has more than INT4
> > hosts (not part of the network address).
>
> Actually "increment the host address" isn't a well-defined concept for
> IPV6. The "host" part of the address (if you're on an Ethernet) is
> generally the 64 bit MAC address.
So if the network card dies the machine has a new IPv6 address and you
just update your DNS? Do you update your routing tables?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-05-23 16:08:21 | Re: inet increment w/ int8 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-23 15:42:31 | Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each |