| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Definitional issue for INET types |
| Date: | 2000-02-17 15:41:38 |
| Message-ID: | 15629.950802098@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> writes:
> 3) You can't compare inet and cidr because they're two different (albeit
> similar) things. If you want to compare them you have to explicitly cast
> inet to cidr or vice versa according to 1) or 2).
This might in fact be the right answer --- maybe CIDR and INET should
have different comparison semantics. Right now the two types seem to
share exactly the same operators, which makes me wonder why we have
both.
I don't suppose Paul Vixie is still reading this list. Someone should
contact him and ask where we went wrong. Who was our point man on the
network types to begin with?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-02-17 15:49:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Definitional issue for INET types |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-02-17 15:17:34 | Re: [HACKERS] Almost there on column aliases |