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

Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>
Cc: Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR
Date: 2000-10-27 22:03:55
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
BTW, does it strike anyone else as peculiar that the host(),
broadcast(), network(), and netmask() functions yield results
of type text, rather than type inet?  Seems like it'd be considerably
more useful if they returned values of type inet with masklen = 32
(except for network(), which would keep the original masklen while
coercing bits to its right to 0).

Given the current proposal that inet_out should always display all 4
octets, and the existing fact that inet_out suppresses display of
a /32 netmask, the textual display of SELECT host(...) etc would
remain the same as it is now.  But AFAICS you could do more with
an inet-type result value, like say compare it to other inet or cidr
values ...

Comments?  Why was it done this way, anyway?

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-10-27 22:06:22
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)
Previous:From: Don BaccusDate: 2000-10-27 21:57:51
Subject: Re: LIMIT in DECLARE CURSOR: request for comments

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