Re: inet increment w/ int8

From: Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Patrick Welche <prlw1(at)newn(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: inet increment w/ int8
Date: 2005-05-23 15:19:22
Message-ID: m2d5rihsw5.fsf@Douglas-McNaughts-Powerbook.local
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> I modified the TODO. I think we only need an INT4. I realize INT8
> would be for IPV6 but I can't imagine a network that has more than INT4
> hosts (not part of the network address).

Actually "increment the host address" isn't a well-defined concept for
IPV6. The "host" part of the address (if you're on an Ethernet) is
generally the 64 bit MAC address.

-Doug

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message --= Tono =-- 2005-05-23 15:26:38 Re: INSTEAD OF trigger on VIEWs
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2005-05-23 15:13:47 Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each