From: | Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR |
Date: | 2000-10-28 03:39:29 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSO.4.10.10010272338150.2291-100000@spider.pilosoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, does it strike anyone else as peculiar that the host(),
> broadcast(), network(), and netmask() functions yield results
> of type text, rather than type inet? Seems like it'd be considerably
> more useful if they returned values of type inet with masklen = 32
> (except for network(), which would keep the original masklen while
> coercing bits to its right to 0).
Yep, absolutely.
> Given the current proposal that inet_out should always display all 4
> octets, and the existing fact that inet_out suppresses display of
> a /32 netmask, the textual display of SELECT host(...) etc would
> remain the same as it is now. But AFAICS you could do more with
> an inet-type result value, like say compare it to other inet or cidr
> values ...
> Comments? Why was it done this way, anyway?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alex Pilosov | 2000-10-28 03:57:14 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] A rare error |
Previous Message | Alex Pilosov | 2000-10-28 03:27:38 | Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR |