Re: Re: postgres - development of inet/cidr

On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Sevo Stille wrote:
>
> This would be proper behaviour for the cidr datatype, which describes a
> network. "select '10.0.0.1/27'::cidr='10.0.0.2/27'::cidr;" has to return
> true, as both define the same network, the mask putting the 1 vs. 2
> outside the comparison scope.
>
> On inet, I consider the above broken - going by the documentation,
> having a netmask on a inet datatype does not define a network address
> but rather supplies additional information on the cidr network the host
> as specified by the address is in. Accordingly, it should only truncate
> if the comparison casts to cidr.

OK. After some inspection in list's archives I found the following
statement (http://www.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-hackers/1998-07)
> It does not work that way. /24 is
> not a shorthand for specifying a netmask -- in CIDR, it's a "prefix
> length".
> That means "192.7.34.21/24" is either (a) a syntax error or
> (b) equivilent to "192.7.34/24".

Everybody seemed to agree with the above opinion at that time.

This is obviously _not_ the way that CIDR is handled at this moment.
"select '1.2.3.4/24'" returns "1.2.3/24" only because the _output_ routine
silently cuts host bits. Input routine stores it exactly as '1.2.3.4/24'.

Since IMHO it's wrong I prepared a patch (I'm sending it to pgsql-patch).
It fixes the CIDR input routine to zero host bits (ie beyond-prefix bits).
Please note that I didn't change the INET input routine.

Eventually I had to change a bit comparison functions.
To this moment they worked in a CIDR way (didn't compare host bits at all)
although they were used by both INET and CIDR.
Since CIDR is zero-padded now, whole 32 bits are compared by > = <
operators.
Subnet operators <<, >> are still the same, don't compare host bits.

> The big question is whether comparisons that only work on a cidr data
> type (contains/contained) or have a cidr type on one side can safely
> cast the inet type to cidr implicitly. For:
> "select '10.0.0.1/27'::inet = '10.0.0.2/27'::inet;" FALSE
> "select '10.0.0.1/27'::cidr = '10.0.0.2/27'::cidr;" TRUE
> "select '10.0.0.1/27'::cidr = '10.0.0.2/27'::inet;" FALSE
> "select '10.0.0.1/27'::cidr >> '10.0.0.2/27'::inet;" TRUE
OK.
> "select '10.0.0.1/27'::cidr << '10.0.0.2/27'::inet;" ERROR

Currently it's not an error... There is no way (and no reason) to
distinguish between INET and CIDR. Above example is exactly
equivalent to:
select '10.0.0.0/27'::inet << '10.0.0.2/27'::inet; -- FALSE
but:
select '10.0.0.0/27'::inet <<= '10.0.0.2/27'::inet; -- TRUE

> But we need to reach an agreement on the proper
> behaviour on greater/smaller comparisons. Should:
>
> "select '10.0.0.1/27'::inet > '10.0.0.2/27'::cidr;"
>
> be true or false? Casting to cidr prior to comparison would make it
> equivalent to "select '10.0.0.0/27'::cidr > '10.0.0.0/27'::cidr;", which
> is false, both networks being equal.

It should be (and is!) true... Since second argument is
really '10.0.0.0/27'.