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

Re: Why so few built-in range types?

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, karavelov(at)mail(dot)bg, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why so few built-in range types?
Date: 2011-12-03 21:57:24
Message-ID: m2vcpxiaij.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> IIRC, a lot of the basic behavior of the inet/cidr types was designed by
> Paul Vixie (though he's not to blame for their I/O presentation).
> So I'm inclined to doubt that they're as broken as Stephen claims.

The ip4r extension's main use case is range lookups.  You get an ip and
want to know what range it's in:  GiST indexing makes that operation
damn fast, and the ip4r datatype is quite flexible about what a range
is.  Apparently core types are solving other problems, that I never had
to solve myself, so I never used them.

Installing ip4r in a database is routine operation, I could accept
having that by default without blinking now.

Regards,
-- 
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andres FreundDate: 2011-12-03 21:57:49
Subject: Re: Command Triggers
Previous:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2011-12-03 21:51:49
Subject: Re: Why so few built-in range types?

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