Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Without the flag, it's okay for cidr-to-inet to be a
> >> binary-compatible (no function) conversion. However, inet-to-cidr
> >> has to either zero out bits to the right of the netmask, or error out
> >> if any are set. Joachim Wieland posted a patch that makes the
> >> coercion function just silently zero out any such bits. That's OK
> >> with me, but does anyone want to argue for an error?
>
> > Zero the bits if it's an explicit cast, raise an error if not.
>
> I know there's precedent for such behavior in the SQL spec, but it
> always seemed pretty ugly to me :-(. The patch-as-committed just
> silently zeroes the bits during any inet->cidr cast. I'll change it
> if there's consensus that that's a bad idea, but I don't really see
> a reason to.

I agree. Let's do the zeroing and see if people complain about it.
Throwing an error seems extreme.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073