Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR
Date: 2000-10-28 12:13:23
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.21.0010281411190.763-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane writes:

> Hm. I don't see any really good reason why host() rejects CIDR input
> in the first place. What's wrong with producing the host address
> that corresponds to extending the CIDR network address with zeroes?

Because it's semantically wrong. It's just as wrong as converting DATE to
TIMESTAMP by setting the time to zero. -- And we actually do this...

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2000-10-28 12:21:06 Re: Second proposal: what to do about INET/CIDR
Previous Message Razvan Radu 2000-10-28 10:55:56 rule on insert