| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Matthew N(dot) Dodd" <winter(at)jurai(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] cidr |
| Date: | 1998-07-22 12:13:02 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.3.96.980722081215.23582B-100000@hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter(at)jurai(dot)net> writes:
> > Plus, it would enable me to use my existing data without reloading.
> > (ignoring the fact that 6.4 will probably require this.)
>
> 6.4 definitely will require a database reload, so as long as the
> external representations are compatible this isn't a good argument
> for a separate /32 type.
>
> The space issue might be something to think about. But I'm inclined
> to think that we should build in IPv6 support from the get-go, rather
> than have to add it later. We ought to try to be ahead of the curve
> not behind it. So it's gonna be more than 4 bytes/entry anyway.
I have to agree here...being able to say we support a CIDR type is
one thing, but able to say we support IPv6 is, IMHO, a big thing...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1998-07-22 12:22:37 | Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and Informix on Linux] |
| Previous Message | JohnDz | 1998-07-22 09:34:40 | Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and Informix on Linux] |