Re: [HACKERS] New IP address datatype

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New IP address datatype
Date: 1999-06-01 00:14:33
Message-ID: 20084.928196073@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"D'Arcy" "J.M." Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> writes:
> Speaking of which, I wonder what Paul would say about the primary key
> discussion. Maybe I'll drop him a note.

Good thought, if he's not reading the mailing list anymore (which seems
likely given the volume...).

I still assert that indexes need to behave the same as the comparison
operators --- but maybe the comparison operators ought to behave
differently for INET and CIDR types? It seems reasonable that
the netmask should be ignored when comparing one, but not the other...

regards, tom lane

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vince Vielhaber 1999-06-01 00:19:31 which list?
Previous Message D'Arcy J.M. Cain 1999-06-01 00:08:37 Re: [HACKERS] New IP address datatype