| From: | Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Adding integers ( > 8 bytes) to an inet |
| Date: | 2009-09-08 16:11:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20090908161102.GJ5407@samason.me.uk |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 05:58:01PM +0200, Kristian Larsson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 11:37:02AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I think the whole thing is a bit of a crock; adding integers to inet
> > addresses doesn't make a lot of sense logically. Perhaps what is
> > really wanted is functions on CIDR net identifiers, for instance
[...]
> For me, as a network engineer, adding an integer to a inet feels
> quite natural. Inet is just another representation of a integer
> anyway... so I'd really not have a problem with having either a
> int16 or being able to add numerics to inets :)
Indeed, it seems similar to the (somewhat arbitrary) decision that
adding an int to a date results that many days being added to it.
Timestamp INTERVALs may be more flexible, but it's a useful shortcut
that I use quite often.
Something to convert to/from a NUMERIC value and INET would seem useful
as well.
--
Sam http://samason.me.uk/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrus | 2009-09-08 16:29:07 | pg_dump exists without any message when running from windows task scheduler |
| Previous Message | Kristian Larsson | 2009-09-08 16:04:34 | Re: Adding integers ( > 8 bytes) to an inet |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-08 16:11:55 | Re: Patch: update Bonjour support to the newer non-deprecated API |
| Previous Message | Michael Gould | 2009-09-08 16:09:35 | Disable and enable of table and column constraints |