Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] 2003 Report

From: Kurt Roeckx <Q(at)ping(dot)be>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>,Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>,Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 2003 Report
Date: 2003-01-30 19:59:59
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 11:28:41AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > 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?
> We have to work out what the semantics should be.  I don't know anything
> about v6, but I'd imagine v4 addresses form a defined subset of the v6
> address space ... if so the semantics seem pretty straightforward.

You have a "ipv4 mapped ipv6 address".  The ipv4 address becomes
::ffff:  But I'm not really in favour of automatically
changing an ipv4 address to an ipv6 address.  And you really
shouldn't return an ipv4 address as an ipv6 address.

Some thing you also shouldn't forget for ipv6 addresses is the
scope.  An address with a scope of the link can be assigned to
several interfaces.  If they want to differentiate between them,
should they be able to store it the same field, or use a
different one?

My question really is how you're going to store it.  Are you
going to store is as a character string, or as binary?
If you store is as binary, how will you know if it's an ipv4 or
ipv6 address?  Based on the size?

From an application point of view it's more handy if you have a
combination of the address family and the data, so they don't
have to guess all the time.

P.S.: I don't really like the ipv6 patch.  It's more complicated
than it should be.  I really don't have the time to fix it/do it
better though.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Vince VielhaberDate: 2003-01-30 20:05:37
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System
Previous:From: Dave PageDate: 2003-01-30 19:56:30
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-01-31 01:13:30
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 2003 Report
Previous:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2003-01-30 19:20:07
Subject: Re: 2003 Report

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group