From: | Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews(at)supernews(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess |
Date: | 2006-01-25 18:38:54 |
Message-ID: | slrndtfhdt.d6t.andrew+nonews@atlantis.supernews.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2006-01-25, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)MIT(dot)EDU> wrote:
> I have a question in a different direction. What is the meaning of the
> network mask in the inet data type anyways? Hosts don't have network masks,
> only networks.
As far as I can tell, the "inet" semantics are supposed to represent a
network interface, rather than just an address. So it designates a network
and a host within that network. This is a significant semantic overload,
which is not relevent to many applications and may be counterproductive
(for example, if you had a database of hosts and networks, the network info
would more correctly be accessed via a reference to a separate table than
embedded in the host address).
> If we could store inet in four bytes it would be vastly more efficient both
> in disk space usage and in cpu at runtime.
That's not reasonable for inet/cidr due to the need to support ipv6.
If you want that for ip4-only apps, that's why pgfoundry.org/projects/ip4r
exists. It is possible that ip4r will be extended to ipv6 addresses, but
most unlikely that it will ever implement the overloaded "inet" semantics.
--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Atkins | 2006-01-25 18:40:36 | Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2006-01-25 18:36:32 | Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess |