From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |
Date: | 2003-01-30 14:48:37 |
Message-ID: | 18721.1043938117@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
[ pgsql-advocacy trimmed from cc list; seems off-topic for them ]
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> writes:
> On Thursday 30 January 2003 07:42, Gavin Sherry wrote:
>> Different storage for ipv4 vs. ipv6 (why punish ipv4 users with an extra
>> 96 bits of storage?). Use of ipv4 and ipv6 should be mutually
>> exclusive. Extra code in inet type causing bloat.
> The inet code has been designed from day one to handle ipv6. It was assumed
> that the extra glue would be added when it was needed. I don't see any
> reason to change that. I also don't think it adds an extra 12 bytes to ipv4
> addresses if you do. The type is variable size if I recall correctly.
Yes, it is; so the "extra storage" argument holds no water. And the
"code bloat" argument doesn't either, that I can see. It's not going to
take more code to incorporate ipv6 functionality as part of an existing
datatype than as part of a new datatype. (If anything, it should take
less code that way; you don't need any extra per-datatype overhead.)
> Certainly we don't want people to have two different fields for the
> same piece of information, an IP address.
That's the main argument in my mind. If a user *wants* to segregate
ipv4 and v6 addresses, he can do so in any case --- but if he'd rather
have a column that could be either kind, only the unified-datatype
approach will be convenient for him.
Why exactly should "use of ipv4 and ipv6 be mutually exclusive"?
I don't see the argument for that. (It'd have to be an argument that
doesn't just establish a scenario where you'd want that, but proves
that we should force that point of view upon every application using
IP addresses.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2003-01-30 15:10:02 | Oracle CEO on the limits of open-source databases. |
Previous Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 2003-01-30 12:53:51 | Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-30 15:26:02 | Re: v7.2.4 bundled ... |
Previous Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2003-01-30 13:24:50 | Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System |