From: | Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] inet << indexability |
Date: | 2001-06-16 19:20:38 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSO.4.10.10106161520160.17529-100000@spider.pilosoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com> writes:
> > I didn't want to make them user-visible, however, the alternative, IMHO,
> > is worse, since these functions rely on network_broadcast and
> > network_network to do the work, calling sequence would be:
> > a) indxpath casts Datum to inet, passes to network_scan*
> > b) network_scan will create new Datum, pass it to network_broadcast
> > c) network_scan will extract inet from Datum returned
> > d) indxpath will then cast inet back to Datum :)
> > Which, I think, is pretty messy :)
>
> Sure, but you could make them look like
>
> Datum network_scan_first(Datum networkaddress)
>
> without incurring any of that overhead. (Anyway, Datum <-> inet* is
> only a cast.)
Gotcha, I misunderstood you the first time.
Thanks
-alex
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Trond Eivind Glomsrød | 2001-06-16 20:49:33 | Re: postgres dies while doing vacuum analyze |
Previous Message | Manuel Sugawara | 2001-06-16 19:09:47 | Re: postgres dies while doing vacuum analyze |