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

Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR

From: Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR
Date: 2000-10-28 03:39:29
Message-ID: Pine.BSO.4.10.10010272338150.2291-100000@spider.pilosoft.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Tom Lane wrote:

> BTW, does it strike anyone else as peculiar that the host(),
> broadcast(), network(), and netmask() functions yield results
> of type text, rather than type inet?  Seems like it'd be considerably
> more useful if they returned values of type inet with masklen = 32
> (except for network(), which would keep the original masklen while
> coercing bits to its right to 0).
Yep, absolutely. 

> Given the current proposal that inet_out should always display all 4
> octets, and the existing fact that inet_out suppresses display of
> a /32 netmask, the textual display of SELECT host(...) etc would
> remain the same as it is now.  But AFAICS you could do more with
> an inet-type result value, like say compare it to other inet or cidr
> values ...
> Comments?  Why was it done this way, anyway?


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alex PilosovDate: 2000-10-28 03:57:14
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] A rare error
Previous:From: Alex PilosovDate: 2000-10-28 03:27:38
Subject: Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR

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