Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR

* Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> [001027 15:14]:
> Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com> writes:
> > Also, I agree with Larry that cidr _must_ be printed with 4 octets in
> > them, whether they are 0 or not. (i.e. it should print 207.158.72.0/24)
>
> > This is the standard way of specifying addresses in all network equipment.
> > RFC specifies that, just the library that we use doesn't (yes, it is from
> > Vixie, but it doesn't make it RFC-compliant)
>
> Somehow, I am more inclined to believe Vixie's opinion on this than
> either yours or Larry's ;-)
>
> If you think there is an RFC that demands the above behavior and not
> what Vixie recommended to us, let's see chapter and verse.
>
> FWIW, the direction we seem to be converging in is that INET will always
> print all four octets. Maybe the answer for you is to use INET, rather
> than to try to persuade us that you understand CIDR notation better than
> Vixie does...
What I need is a way to convince PG to print all 4 octets from a CIDR
type. I *WANT* the safety of the CIDR type for blocks of addresses,
but need to be able to print all 4 octets out for NON-TECHIES.

LER
>
> regards, tom lane
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 (voice) Internet: ler(at)lerctr(dot)org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749