| From: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL General Discussion <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Strange input/cast semantics for inet |
| Date: | 2005-07-22 00:43:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20050722004346.GA56911@winnie.fuhr.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 06:38:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> > The normal way to read "1.10" would be as synonymous with "1.0.0.10".
>
> That might be the case for IPv6, but it's never been a standard
> convention for IPv4; and even for IPv6 it doesn't make any sense
> for a network (as opposed to host) number.
I don't know if it's ever been blessed by a formal standard, but
that way of interpreting an IPv4 address is widely implemented in
inet_aton() and friends. The 4.2BSD inet(3) manual page documents
that interpretation, and on most (all?) systems I've ever used,
"ping 127.1" is a shortcut for pinging the loopback address.
--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Sydney-Smith | 2005-07-22 01:50:29 | Connection error |
| Previous Message | Paul Tillotson | 2005-07-22 00:31:48 | Re: IN subquery not using a hash |