Re: macaddr 64 bit (EUI-64) datatype support

On 10/12/16, Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly(dot)burovoy(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 10/12/16, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2016 14:32, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> > Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> and you can instead make macaddr64 support both format, and provide a
>>> >> macaddr::macaddr64 cast
>>> >
>>> > Having macaddr64 support both formats sounds nice, but how does it
>>> > work?
>>> > Will we have to reserve one additional bit to select the
>>> > representation?
>>> > That would make the type be 65 bits which is a clear loser IMO.
>>> >
>>> > Is it allowed to just leave 16 bits as zeroes which would indicate
>>> > that
>>> > the address is EUI48? I wouldn't think so ...
>>>
>>> From what I read, you can indicate it's an EUI-48 address by storing
>>> FF:FF (or FF:FE for MAC-48) in 4th and 5th bytes of the EUI-64 address.
>>
>> That seems reasonable at first glance; so the new type would be able to
>> store both 48-bit and 64-bit values, and there would be assignment casts
>> in both directions
>
> I think either "macaddr" should be renamed to "macaddr6" (saved its
> oid), a new type "macaddr8" is added with introducing a new alias
> "macaddr" or the current "macaddr" should accept both versions as the
> "inet" type does.
>
> The function "macaddr_recv" can distinguish them by the
> StringInfoData.len member, "macaddr_in" - by number of parts split by
> ":".
> The "macaddr_out" and "macaddr_send" can out 6 octets if the stored
> value is mapped to MAC-48.
> Storing can be done always as 8 bytes using the rule above.
>
> In the other case there is hard from user's PoV to detect at the
> design stage when it is necessary to define column as macaddr and when
> to macaddr8.
> If users need to update a column type (a new hardware appears with
> EUI-64 address), they should keep in mind that all things are changed
> for the new column type - stored procedure's parameters, application
> code interacting with the DB etc.).
> I don't agree with Tom's proposal to introduce a new type, it would be
> inconvenient for users.
>
> We have types "int2", "int4", "int8" and an alias "int" for a type
> "int4", at least psql does not show it:
> postgres=# \dT+ int
> List of data types
> Schema | Name | Internal name | Size | Elements | Owner | Access
> privileges | Description
> --------+------+---------------+------+----------+-------+-------------------+-------------
> (0 rows)
>
> It is understandable to have 3 types for integers because most space
> of the DB occupied by them and in the real life we just don't use big
> numbers, but cases for "inet" and "macaddr" are different.
>
>> and a suite of operators to enable interoperability
>> of 48-bit values in macaddr8 with values in type macaddr. Right?
>>
>> (The cast function from macaddr8 to macaddr would raise error if the
>> 4th and 5th bytes are not either FF:FF or FF:FE -- I don't think we can
>> in practice distinguish EUI-48 from MAC-48 in this context.
>
> The wikipedia says[1] they are the same things but MAC-48 is an
> obsolete term for a special case, so there is no necessary to
> distinguish them.
>
>> The cast in the other direction would have no restriction and should
>> probably always use FF:FE).
>
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizationally_unique_identifier#48-bit_Media_Access_Control_Identifier_.28MAC-48.29

Haribabu Kommi, why have you read enough about EUI-64?
Your function "macaddr64_trunc" sets 4 lower bytes as 0 whereas
(according to the Wikipedia, but I can look for a standard) 3 bytes
are still define an OUI (organizationally unique identifier), so
truncation should be done for 5, not 4 lower octets.

The macros "hibits" should be 3 octets long, not 4; "lobits" --- 5 bytes, not 4.
In the other case your comparisons fail.

What document have you used to write the patch? Are short form formats
correct in macaddr64_in?

P.S.: I still think it is a good idea to change storage format,
macaddr_{in,out,send,recv}, fill 4th and 5th bytes if necessary;
change "lobits" macros and add new fields to bit operation functions.
It avoids a new type, casting, comparison functions between macaddr6
and macaddr8 etc. Proposed patch is mostly copy-paste of mac.c

--
Best regards,
Vitaly Burovoy