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

Re: Why so few built-in range types?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, karavelov(at)mail(dot)bg, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why so few built-in range types?
Date: 2011-12-02 03:21:26
Message-ID: 3983.1322796086@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>> I don't have any particular care about if cidr has indexing support or
>> not.  I'm certainly not *against* it, except insofar as it encourages
>> use of a data type that really could probably be better (by being more
>> like ip4r..).

> Not that you're biased or anything!  :-p

IIRC, a lot of the basic behavior of the inet/cidr types was designed by
Paul Vixie (though he's not to blame for their I/O presentation).
So I'm inclined to doubt that they're as broken as Stephen claims.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-12-02 03:22:32
Subject: Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-12-02 02:46:09
Subject: Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation

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