| From: | darcy(at)druid(dot)net (D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain) |
|---|---|
| To: | taral(at)mail(dot)utexas(dot)edu (Taral) |
| Cc: | paul(at)vix(dot)com (Paul A Vixie), pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: inet/cidr/bind |
| Date: | 1998-10-19 20:00:46 |
| Message-ID: | m0zVLTy-0000emC@druid.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thus spake Taral
> Can't we just use a CONSTRAINT where a host address is expected? That sounds
> easier than setting up two different types to me...
The constraint would be pretty complicated and it doesn't handle the
different output rules.
Don't worry. After things settle down we'll fold things together so
that there is two input wrapper functions and everything else will be
handled by the same functions so you won't hardly know the difference.
I too originally thought there should be one type but Paul has convinced
me otherwise.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at){druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vince Vielhaber | 1998-10-19 20:11:31 | RE: [HACKERS] Whodunit? Who ate anoncvs? |
| Previous Message | Taral | 1998-10-19 19:58:11 | Whodunit? Who ate anoncvs? |