From: | Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Contains and is contained by operators of inet datatypes |
Date: | 2016-11-13 12:21:11 |
Message-ID: | CAE2gYzzR-FyhFUvmJuB_2YuT8nde04gkgqti4L4_sgjwq_kF6w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> - I am not convinced that your changes to the descriptions of the operators
> necessarily make things clearer. For example "is contained by and smaller
> network (subnet)" only mentions subnets and not IP-addresses.
I was trying to avoid confusion. <@ is the "contained by" operator
which is also returning true when both sides are equal. We shouldn't
continue calling <<@ also "contained by". I removed the "(subnet)"
and "(supernet)" additions. Can you think of any better wording?
> - Maybe change "deprecated and will eventually be removed." to "deprecated
> and may be removed in a future release.". I prefer that latter wording but I
> am fine with either.
I copied that note from the Geometric Functions and Operators page.
> - Won't renaming the functions which implement risk breaking people's
> applications? While the new names are a bit nicer I am not sure it is worth
> doing.
You are right. I reverted that part.
> - The changes to the code look generally good.
Thank you for the review. New version is attached.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-inet-contain-op-v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 47.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Emre Hasegeli | 2016-11-13 13:05:17 | Re: Floating point comparison inconsistencies of the geometric types |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-11-13 09:54:28 | Re: Do we need use more meaningful variables to replace 0 in catalog head files? |