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

Re: INET/CIDR types

From: darcy(at)druid(dot)net (D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain)
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org, Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>
Subject: Re: INET/CIDR types
Date: 2000-07-27 10:16:54
Message-ID: m13Hkik-000AX9C@druid.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Thus spake Peter Eisentraut
> > Hmmm.  I just noticed this.
> > 
> > darcy=> select '1.2.0.1/23'::cidr;
> > ?column?
> > --------
> > 1.2.0/23
> > (1 row)
> > 
> > Shouldn't that throw an error?
> 
> Isn't that what I've been saying all along?

Well, yes but I thought that it was now and that you were arguing to keep
that behaviour.  This seems to be the behaviour that I was suggesting
although you have half convinced me that this should throw an error.

So, it looks like the status quo is for inet::cidr to be a different
spelling for network(inet).  Is this the way we want to keep it?

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at){druid|vex}.net>   |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2000-07-27 10:30:08
Subject: RE: AW: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples
Previous:From: Patrick WelcheDate: 2000-07-27 09:46:46
Subject: Re: Installation Report for powerpc-apple-netbsdelf1.5

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