Re: [HACKERS] cidr

> On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Paul A Vixie wrote:
>
> > > Also, I would assume we can handle old-style non-cidr address just as
> > > cleanly, so both cidr and non-cidr can use the same type and functions.
> >
> > the implementation i sent around yesterday does this just fine. or rather
> > it makes useful assumptions if no "/" is given, and it always prints the "/".
>
> Does anyone have any objections to using Paul's implementation as
> "the base implementation", to be inserted into the main stream code now,
> and built up from there?

It is already being worked on by one of the ip_and_mac developers. He
is merging the types. We need him to work on it because he understands
PostgreSQL better.

>
> Assuming no objections, Paul...can you get your implementation
> merged into the 'main stream code' vs 'contrib' and submit an appropriate
> patch for it? The sooner we get it into the main stream, the sooner more
> ppl are playing with it, testing it, and suggesting/submitting changes to
> it...

Again, it is being worked on. I don't think Paul wants to get into
installing in into the main tree. It is quite a job. We may need to
increase the max system oid to get us more available oids.

> And the type is to be a 'CIDR', which is the appropriate
> terminology for what it is...those that need it, will know what it is
> *shrug*

I use IP addresses and didn't know. I am also hoping we can allow
storage of old and cidr types in the same type, at least superficially.

--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)