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

Re: classful cidr insertion bug?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Paul Schultz <pschultz(at)pschultz(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: classful cidr insertion bug?
Date: 2002-06-17 03:27:39
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Paul Schultz <pschultz(at)pschultz(dot)com> writes:
> For the cidr data type it says an insertion missing the subnet bits should
> be handled like legacy classful networks.

No, it says:

: The format for specifying classless networks is x.x.x.x/y where x.x.x.x
: is the network and y is the number of bits in the netmask. If y is
: omitted, it is calculated using assumptions from the older classful
: numbering system, except that it will be at least large enough to
: include all of the octets written in the input.

Note the last phrase.

> ie if I insert just
> '' it should be handled as ''.

No, because you wrote four octets.  Observe:

regression=# select ''::cidr;
(1 row)

regression=# select '172.16'::cidr;
(1 row)

regression=# select '172'::cidr;
(1 row)

The last example is where the old numbering system actually influences
the result.  You can get a wider-than-written netmask from the old
conventions, but not a narrower-than-written netmask.

I don't personally have a lot of allegiance to this setup, but it
was hashed out through discussions among a number of people who use
the inet types heavily.  If you want to propose changing it, I suggest
you go back and read the archives first.  There will be very little
interest in any complaints that don't include arguments demolishing
the older discussion.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Karel ZakDate: 2002-06-17 09:08:32
Subject: Re: to_date bug
Previous:From: Paul SchultzDate: 2002-06-17 00:35:22
Subject: classful cidr insertion bug?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group