Re: [BUGS] Bug in create operator and/or initdb

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Tom Lane wrote:

> Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com> writes:
>> For a replacement type, how important is it that it be completely
>> compatible with the existing inet/cidr types? Is anyone actually using
>> inet types with a non-cidr mask?
>
> If you check the archives you'll discover that our current inet/cidr
> types were largely designed and implemented by Paul Vixie (yes, that
> Vixie). I'm disinclined to second-guess Paul about the external
> definition of these types; I just want to rationalize the internal
> representation a bit. In particular we've got some issues about
> conversions between the two types ...
Please do **NOT** break the external representations. We had enough fights
about that 2-3 releases ago, and I personally don't want to revisit them.

Yes, we do flakey things with inet on the masking stuff.

LER

--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler(at)lerctr(dot)org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749