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

Re: [BUGS] Bug in create operator and/or initdb

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUGS] Bug in create operator and/or initdb
Date: 2005-01-30 06:46:19
Message-ID: 29973.1107067579@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-hackers
Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com> writes:
> For a replacement type, how important is it that it be completely
> compatible with the existing inet/cidr types? Is anyone actually using
> inet types with a non-cidr mask?

If you check the archives you'll discover that our current inet/cidr
types were largely designed and implemented by Paul Vixie (yes, that
Vixie).  I'm disinclined to second-guess Paul about the external
definition of these types; I just want to rationalize the internal
representation a bit.  In particular we've got some issues about
conversions between the two types ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-01-30 06:51:08
Subject: Re: Huge memory consumption during vacuum (v.8.0)
Previous:From: Oleg BartunovDate: 2005-01-30 06:14:06
Subject: Huge memory consumption during vacuum (v.8.0)

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Bradley D. SnobarDate: 2005-01-30 07:22:44
Subject: Re: BUG #1434: ERROR: type "bigserial" does not exist
Previous:From: Steve AtkinsDate: 2005-01-30 04:20:10
Subject: Re: [BUGS] Bug in create operator and/or initdb

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