| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, karavelov(at)mail(dot)bg, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why so few built-in range types? |
| Date: | 2011-12-03 21:57:24 |
| Message-ID: | m2vcpxiaij.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> IIRC, a lot of the basic behavior of the inet/cidr types was designed by
> Paul Vixie (though he's not to blame for their I/O presentation).
> So I'm inclined to doubt that they're as broken as Stephen claims.
The ip4r extension's main use case is range lookups. You get an ip and
want to know what range it's in: GiST indexing makes that operation
damn fast, and the ip4r datatype is quite flexible about what a range
is. Apparently core types are solving other problems, that I never had
to solve myself, so I never used them.
Installing ip4r in a database is routine operation, I could accept
having that by default without blinking now.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2011-12-03 21:57:49 | Re: Command Triggers |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-12-03 21:51:49 | Re: Why so few built-in range types? |