Re: inet increment w/ int8

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: inet increment w/ int8
Date: 2005-04-19 16:49:03
Message-ID: 200504191649.j3JGn3Y27851@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> > am thinking we should support only inet + inet, like this:
> >
> > SELECT '1.2.3.4'::inet + '0.0.1.2'::inet;
>
> I don't think inet+inet makes any sense.
>
> I think inet+int4 should work by adding to the host address and overflowing if
> it exceeds the network mask.
>
> Ie,
>
> 10.0.0.0/24 + 1 = 10.0.0.1/24
> 10.0.0.255/24 + 1 => overflow
>
> Or
>
> 10.1/16 + 1 = 10.1.0.1/16
> 10.1/16 + 16384 = 10.1.64.0/16
> 10.1/16 + 65536 => overflow

So, do not overflow? We can do that. Another idea Tom had was creating
a function that increments/decrements the address or the network portion
of the address, and if you increment past the non-network portion that
overflows too.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2005-04-19 16:55:07 Re: Problem with PITR recovery
Previous Message Greg Stark 2005-04-19 16:41:34 Re: inet increment w/ int8