Re: [HACKERS] cidr

> "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter(at)jurai(dot)net> writes:
> > Plus, it would enable me to use my existing data without reloading.
> > (ignoring the fact that 6.4 will probably require this.)
>
> 6.4 definitely will require a database reload, so as long as the
> external representations are compatible this isn't a good argument
> for a separate /32 type.
>
> The space issue might be something to think about. But I'm inclined
> to think that we should build in IPv6 support from the get-go, rather
> than have to add it later. We ought to try to be ahead of the curve
> not behind it. So it's gonna be more than 4 bytes/entry anyway.
>
> Would it make sense to use atttypmod to distinguish several different
> subtypes of CIDR? "4 bytes", "4 bytes + mask", "6 bytes", "6 bytes
> + mask" seem like interesting possibilities.

Yes, that is the proper way to go, though atttypmod is something on
column, not on each data row. It is specified when the column is
created.

--
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)