Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Why so few built-in range types?

From: karavelov(at)mail(dot)bg
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why so few built-in range types?
Date: 2011-12-01 14:12:03
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
----- 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


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andres FreundDate: 2011-12-01 14:18:29
Subject: Re: synchronous commit vs. hint bits
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-12-01 14:11:43
Subject: Re: synchronous commit vs. hint bits

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group