| From: | Paul A Vixie <vixie(at)mfnx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | well, now i wish we hadn't gutted the ipv6 support |
| Date: | 2001-04-21 17:27:19 |
| Message-ID: | 200104211727.KAA12640@redpaul.mfnx.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
my original CIDR type implementation used BIND's inet_ntop() and inet_pton()
which therefore included latent support for ipv6. it wouldn't take a huge
amount of effort to bring this back, would it?
(the user below is using VARCHAR for his ip addresses for this reason.)
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200104201537(dot)IAA26178(at)gulag(dot)araneus(dot)fi>
To: Paul A Vixie <vixie(at)mfnx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Appliance caching server configuration database schema
In-Reply-To: <200104200314(dot)UAA73417(at)redpaul(dot)mfnx(dot)net>
From: gson(at)nominum(dot)com (Andreas Gustafsson)
Paul A. Vixie writes:
> you can use INET or CIDR for your addresses since this is postgres.
I would if it supported IPv6 addresses.
------- End of Forwarded Message
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-04-21 17:29:13 | Re: setuid(geteuid());? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-04-21 17:17:34 | Re: setuid(geteuid());? |