| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, karavelov(at)mail(dot)bg, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why so few built-in range types? |
| Date: | 2011-12-02 03:21:26 |
| Message-ID: | 3983.1322796086@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>> I don't have any particular care about if cidr has indexing support or
>> not. I'm certainly not *against* it, except insofar as it encourages
>> use of a data type that really could probably be better (by being more
>> like ip4r..).
> Not that you're biased or anything! :-p
IIRC, a lot of the basic behavior of the inet/cidr types was designed by
Paul Vixie (though he's not to blame for their I/O presentation).
So I'm inclined to doubt that they're as broken as Stephen claims.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-12-02 03:22:32 | Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-12-02 02:46:09 | Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation |