From: | Lorenzo Huerta <lorenzo(at)nmsu(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih(at)nhh(dot)no> |
Cc: | Lorenzo Huerta <lorhuerta(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] status on IPv6 implementation... |
Date: | 1998-10-06 15:21:22 |
Message-ID: | Pine.SOL.3.96.981006092056.14510A-100000@wilma |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Does it treat the ip as text, or numeric value?
On 6 Oct 1998, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
> Date: 06 Oct 1998 10:25:28 +0200
> From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih(at)nhh(dot)no>
> To: Lorenzo Huerta <lorhuerta(at)yahoo(dot)com>
> Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, lorenzo(at)nmsu(dot)edu
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] status on IPv6 implementation...
>
> Lorenzo Huerta <lorhuerta(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>
> > I was just wondering if the IPv6 datatype has allready been
> > implemented on the current version of postgres.
>
> IPV4 will be in 6.4, but IPV6 won't. I've left comments and hooks all
> over the IPV4 implementation, marking where to extend it to support
> IPV6, but I haven't actually done so yet. The data type is variable
> length, so that when it starts to support IPV6, existing tables will
> not need to change, and can have IPV6 addresses dropped into them.
>
> -tih
> --
> Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity. --Niles Crane, "Frasier"
>
Thanks,
__________________________________________________________________
* Lorenzo J. Huerta *
* Programming Assistant *
* Computing & Networking Networking Architecture and Operations *
* New Mexico State University *
* phone: (w)(505)646-2582 (h)(505) 521-8699 fax:(505) 646-8139 *
* e-mail: lorenzo(at)nmsu(dot)edu *
* Web Site: http://web.nmsu.edu/~ljhuerta *
__________________________________________________________________
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Hartwig | 1998-10-06 15:28:22 | Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF) |
Previous Message | Greg Youngblood | 1998-10-06 14:48:31 | RE: [GENERAL] Still the problem with the autoincrement field |