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

Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR
Date: 2000-10-28 12:13:23
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.21.0010281411190.763-100000@peter.localdomain (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane writes:

> Hm.  I don't see any really good reason why host() rejects CIDR input
> in the first place.  What's wrong with producing the host address
> that corresponds to extending the CIDR network address with zeroes?

Because it's semantically wrong.  It's just as wrong as converting DATE to
TIMESTAMP by setting the time to zero.  -- And we actually do this...

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net       http://yi.org/peter-e/


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-10-28 12:21:06
Subject: Re: Second proposal: what to do about INET/CIDR
Previous:From: Razvan RaduDate: 2000-10-28 10:55:56
Subject: rule on insert

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