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

Re: Why so few built-in range types?

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why so few built-in range types?
Date: 2011-12-01 13:56:59
Message-ID: 20111201135659.GF24234@tamriel.snowman.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > Erm, isn't there a contrib type that already does all that for you..?
> > ip4r or whatever?  Just saying, if you're looking for that capability..
> 
> Oh, huh, good to know.  Still, I'm not sure why you need to load a
> separate type to get this... there's no reason why the built-in CIDR
> type couldn't support it.

The semantics of that type aren't what people actually want and there's
been push-back about changing it due to backwards compatibility, etc.
That's my recollection of the situation, anyway.  I'm sure there's all
kinds of fun talk in the archives about it.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-12-01 14:11:43
Subject: Re: synchronous commit vs. hint bits
Previous:From: Yeb HavingaDate: 2011-12-01 13:37:29
Subject: Re: patch for type privileges

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