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

Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report

From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Advocacy" <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report
Date: 2003-01-30 06:01:37
Message-ID: GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOCEEKCFAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
> Yeah.  This is a pretty self-contained problem, it just needs someone
> who's motivated to work on it.  Mostly what we need is to understand how
> we want to extend the previously-agreed-to I/O behaviors for IPv4 inet
> and cidr types into the v6 domain.  (Or should we back up and ask if the
> inet/cidr division still makes sense in the v6 world?  I hope so, but
> if not we should face up to it...)

Maybe we should create a new type 'inet6'???

Chris


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-01-30 06:04:52
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-01-30 05:55:30
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-01-30 06:04:52
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-01-30 05:55:30
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report

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