Re: Why so few built-in range types?

----- Цитат от Stephen Frost (sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net), на 01.12.2011 в 15:56 -----

> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>> > Erm, isn't there a contrib type that already does all that for you..?
>> > ip4r or whatever?  Just saying, if you're looking for that capability..
>>
>> Oh, huh, good to know. Still, I'm not sure why you need to load a
>> separate type to get this... there's no reason why the built-in CIDR
>> type couldn't support it.
>
> The semantics of that type aren't what people actually want and there's
> been push-back about changing it due to backwards compatibility, etc.
> That's my recollection of the situation, anyway. I'm sure there's all
> kinds of fun talk in the archives about it.
>

I have reached one or two times to use build-in inet/cidr types but the lack of
indexing support for "contains op" was stopping me - i have used ip4r extension.

I do not think that adding index support to a datatype classifies as semantic
change that will break backward compatibility.

Best regards
--
Luben Karavelov