Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)MIT(dot)EDU>
Cc: andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess
Date: 2006-01-25 18:26:08
Message-ID: 87mzhktb9b.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


I have a question in a different direction. What is the meaning of the network
mask in the inet data type anyways? Hosts don't have network masks, only
networks.

If we could store inet in four bytes it would be vastly more efficient both in
disk space usage and in cpu at runtime.

I think it would also clear up the perpetual user confusion between the two
datatypes. I posit that the main source of the confusion is that currently
Postgres lets you use inet for everything, even if what you're really storing
is a network address range which is what the cidr datatype is really for.

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew - Supernews 2006-01-25 18:30:47 Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess
Previous Message Andrew - Supernews 2006-01-25 18:24:26 Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess