From: | karavelov(at)mail(dot)bg |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why so few built-in range types? |
Date: | 2011-12-01 14:12:03 |
Message-ID: | f07561d4e1c363443b5b08428a04beed.mailbg@beta.mail.bg |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
----- Цитат от Stephen Frost (sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net), на 01.12.2011 в 15:56 -----
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>> > Erm, isn't there a contrib type that already does all that for you..?
>> > ip4r or whatever? Just saying, if you're looking for that capability..
>>
>> Oh, huh, good to know. Still, I'm not sure why you need to load a
>> separate type to get this... there's no reason why the built-in CIDR
>> type couldn't support it.
>
> The semantics of that type aren't what people actually want and there's
> been push-back about changing it due to backwards compatibility, etc.
> That's my recollection of the situation, anyway. I'm sure there's all
> kinds of fun talk in the archives about it.
>
I have reached one or two times to use build-in inet/cidr types but the lack of
indexing support for "contains op" was stopping me - i have used ip4r extension.
I do not think that adding index support to a datatype classifies as semantic
change that will break backward compatibility.
Best regards
--
Luben Karavelov
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2011-12-01 14:18:29 | Re: synchronous commit vs. hint bits |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-12-01 14:11:43 | Re: synchronous commit vs. hint bits |