Re: Adding ip4r to Postgresql core?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Joe Van Dyk <joe(at)tanga(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Adding ip4r to Postgresql core?
Date: 2013-08-08 04:44:42
Message-ID: 4511.1375937082@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's been proposed before, and rejected before, on the grounds that
>> since it doesn't support IPv6 its days are numbered.

> Actually, that's not true.

Ah, my information is obsolete.

> Quoting from the linked readme file,
> : IP4R therefore supports six distinct data types:
> : ip4 - a single IPv4 address
> : ip4r - an arbitrary range of IPv4 addresses
> : ip6 - a single IPv6 address
> : ip6r - an arbitrary range of IPv6 addresses
> : ipaddress - a single IPv4 or IPv6 address
> : iprange - an arbitrary range of IPv4 or IPv6 addresses

So the obvious question today is whether this isn't duplicative of the
range datatype stuff. IOW, why wouldn't we be better off to invent
inetrange and call it good?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sergey Konoplev 2013-08-08 05:27:47 Re: How to avoid Force Autovacuum
Previous Message Sameer Thakur 2013-08-08 04:33:23 Re: Self referencing composite datatype