| From: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Advocacy" <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |
| Date: | 2003-01-30 16:22:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20030130162205.7EA85103EF@polaris.pinpointresearch.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
What about cases where I only want one or the other? Would a simple method
exist to limit input to v4 or v6 only?
Also, what are the implications to functions such as network_sub,
network_cmp, etc. when given mixed v4/v6 inputs as could easily happen if the
two are freely mixed in the same data type?
Cheers,
Steve
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 10:04 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > Maybe we should create a new type 'inet6'???
>
> I'd lean towards allowing the existing inet and cidr types to store both
> v4 and v6 addresses, if at all possible. Is there a good motivation for
> doing otherwise?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-30 16:28:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |
| Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar<shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> | 2003-01-30 15:23:47 | Re: Oracle CEO on the limits of open-source databases. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-30 16:28:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-30 16:12:10 | Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System |