Re: CIDR output format

From: Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CIDR output format
Date: 2000-12-21 11:58:58
Message-ID: 20001221055858.A4803@lerami.lerctr.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> [001220 13:02]:
> Paul A Vixie <vixie(at)mfnx(dot)net> writes:
> > cisco IOS just won't take 10/8 and insists on 10.0.0.0/8. you will never,
> > ever go wrong if you try to use 10.0.0.0/8, since everything that understands
> > CIDR understands that. 10/8 is a pleasant-appearing alternative format, but
> > it is not universally accepted and i recommend against it. (i'm not sure if
> > my original CIDR type implementation for pgsql output the shorthand or not;
> > if it did, then i apologize to one and all.)
>
> Well, that's an earful. Faced with this authoritative opinion, I
> withdraw my previous objections to changing the output format for CIDR.
>
> It would seem that the appropriate behavior would be to make the default
> display format for CIDR be like "10.0.0.0/8". Now the text() conversion
> function already produces this same format. I'd be inclined to leave
> text() as-is and add a new conversion function with some other name
> (suggestions anyone?) that produces the shorthand form "10/8" as text,
> for those who prefer it.
I would call it cidrshort().

I assume this also is true for INET?

Thanks!

LER
>
> Comments?
>
> regards, tom lane
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler(at)lerctr(dot)org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message mlw 2000-12-21 12:27:56 Re: AW: Three types of functions, ala function redux.
Previous Message Oleg Bartunov 2000-12-21 11:45:10 Re: Who is a maintainer of GiST code ?