On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:12 AM, <karavelov(at)mail(dot)bg> wrote:
> I do not think that adding index support to a datatype classifies as
> change that will break backward compatibility.
Me neither. The ip4r type also supports ranges that aren't on
CIDR-block boundaries, which probably isn't something that makes sense
to incorporate into cidr. But not everyone needs that, and some
people might also need support for ipv6 CIDR blocks, which ip4r
doesn't support. So I don't necessarily see the existence of ip4r as
a reason why cidr shouldn't have better indexing support.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-12-01 18:00:04|
|Subject: Re: FlexLocks|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-12-01 17:15:52|
|Subject: Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation|