|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Tom Dunstan <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 11/7/16 1:13 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>>> Yes, I agree that default zone is the main use case of the original thread.
>>> From the RFC 4007, the default zone is used for the global addresses,
>>> This may be the main use case with zone id. How about currently just
>>> ignoring it and store the actual IP address with the attached patch and
>>> handle the rest of the actual zone id support later once the it gets
>>> properly standardized?
>> Well, according to the RFC, the default zone is 0 "typically", which is
>> a very weak requirement. So just ignoring it is probably also not right.
>> So far we have only heard one use case for any of this, which is someone
>> wanting to store ::1%0, which is not even a valid address according to
>> that same RFC. So this is all on very weak ground.
>> I think we should just forget about this. It's all a bit too dubious.
Agreed, let's wait until more standardization emerges. Anything we do now
risks painting ourselves into a corner, and there is not so much demand
for a feature in this area that we need to do something about it Right Now.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Jaime Casanova||2016-11-09 18:29:13||Re: patch proposal|
|Previous Message||Robert Haas||2016-11-09 18:27:21||Re: Bug in comparison of empty jsonb arrays to scalars|