| From: | Tim Smith <randomdev4+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgresql INET select and default route ? |
| Date: | 2015-12-14 18:59:17 |
| Message-ID: | CA+HuS5EahvwnyWnebfstuHCYo8-hJz+PYmRSyvZDP+6YUxZdew@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Fabuous ! Thank you !
On 14 December 2015 at 07:52, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> Re: I am surprised that you don't expect "0.0.0.0/0" to be returned by the first
>> query if you expect it to be returned by the second.
>> Is that an oversicht?
>>
>> Thanks for the question, but no, it wasn't an oversight, I only am
>> looking for 0.0.0.0/0 to be returned if there is no more specific
>> match.
>
> I see, but then you'll have to use a different query:
>
> SELECT a from test where '11.1.2.3' <<= a
> ORDER BY masklen(a) DESC LIMIT 1;
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karsten Hilbert | 2015-12-14 19:20:15 | Re: Permissions, "soft read failure" - wishful thinking? |
| Previous Message | Benjamin Smith | 2015-12-14 17:55:02 | Permissions, "soft read failure" - wishful thinking? |