| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kristian Larsson <kristian(at)spritelink(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Adding integers ( > 8 bytes) to an inet |
| Date: | 2009-09-10 14:30:49 |
| Message-ID: | 23362.1252593049@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Kristian Larsson <kristian(at)spritelink(dot)net> writes:
> Do we
> a) ignore it and let users use the workarounds?
> b) add a next_address() as per Toms suggestion ?
> c) add a conversation between NUMERIC and INET so one can add a
> NUMERIC to an INET just as is possible today with INTEGERs?
I vote for (a).
It was already pointed out that you can build next_address and the
other related functions out of the existing operations, so
proposal (b) wouldn't buy much.
Proposal (c) is disingenuous because it ignores the fact that NUMERIC
does not have (and cannot easily implement) most of the bitwise
operations that people might think they want here.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Grant Maxwell | 2009-09-10 14:37:50 | "show all" command crashes server |
| Previous Message | Kristian Larsson | 2009-09-10 13:42:52 | Re: Adding integers ( > 8 bytes) to an inet |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Emmanuel Cecchet | 2009-09-10 14:33:48 | COPY enhancements |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-10 14:23:33 | Re: Elementary dependency look-up |