From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Advocacy" <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |
Date: | 2003-01-30 16:28:41 |
Message-ID: | 19952.1043944121@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> writes:
> What about cases where I only want one or the other? Would a simple method
> exist to limit input to v4 or v6 only?
I would assume we'd add a test function like is_v6(inet). Given that,
you could add a check constraint "is_v6(col)" or "NOT is_v6(col)" to
any column that you want to restrict.
> Also, what are the implications to functions such as network_sub,
> network_cmp, etc. when given mixed v4/v6 inputs as could easily happen if the
> two are freely mixed in the same data type?
We have to work out what the semantics should be. I don't know anything
about v6, but I'd imagine v4 addresses form a defined subset of the v6
address space ... if so the semantics seem pretty straightforward.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jason Hihn | 2003-01-30 17:19:51 | Re: Oracle CEO on the limits of open-source databases. |
Previous Message | Steve Crawford | 2003-01-30 16:22:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-30 17:07:08 | Re: PostgreSQL, NetBSD and NFS |
Previous Message | Steve Crawford | 2003-01-30 16:22:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |