From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Ilya A(dot) Kovalenko" <shadow(at)oganer(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: inet increment w/ int8 |
Date: | 2005-04-19 20:48:56 |
Message-ID: | 20050419204856.GB18200@wolff.to |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 12:03:27 -0400,
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Agreed. Let's implement '+/-' for 'inet + int4' and put it in the
> backend as standard (I can help do the system table stuff if you give me
> the C functions). However, how do we handle cases where int4 > 255. I
> 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 this operation makes much sense. Adding an integer makes
some sense, but I think the original problem would be better solved
by having a set returning function generate the possible network addresses
to be allocated and store that set in a table.
I don't think assuming everthing is a /24 is a good idea. If wrapping is
to be done, there should be some mask specified.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-04-19 21:33:58 | Re: Bad n_distinct estimation; hacks suggested? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-19 20:44:49 | Re: Bad n_distinct estimation; hacks suggested? |