Tom Lane írta:
> Zoltan Boszormenyi <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
>> Bruce Momjian írta:
>>> What is the use case for such a cast?
>> The application doesn't want to parse the textual IP address
>> when all the parsing and checking intelligence is already there
>> in the inet/cidr type checks.
> This presumes exactly the assumption we are questioning, namely that
> there's a universal binary representation for these things.
But there is: network order.
> There might
> be such for bare IP addresses (ignoring endianness) but the argument
> doesn't scale to CIDR.
Would you enlighten me why not?
> You've also failed to make the case that this
> application designer has made a sane judgment about whether avoiding
> parsing is a good tradeoff here.
So, reinventing the wheel is always the way to go?
Even when the app is actually storing those IP addresses
with the type and features PostgreSQL provides?
> Also: to the extent that the application is willing to deal with a
> Postgres-specific inet/cidr representation (which, in the end, is
> what this would be) it can do that *today* using binary output format.
> So I'm still not seeing an argument for exposing a cast to bytea.
> regards, tom lane
But the binary output of inet/cidr needs another round of parsing
which requires using internal server headers.
Would you like a 4/8/16/32 byte output using IP only
or IP + fully represented netmask better?
Cybertec Geschwinde & Schönig GmbH
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2007-05-31 16:18:11|
|Subject: Re: New cast between inet/cidr and bytea|
|Previous:||From: Richard Huxton||Date: 2007-05-31 15:36:53|
|Subject: Re: timestamp datatyp problem|