Re: [HACKERS] INET and CIDR comparisons

From: "D'Arcy" "J(dot)M(dot)" Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>
To: dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com (Don Baccus)
Cc: darcy(at)druid(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] INET and CIDR comparisons
Date: 1999-06-02 22:18:33
Message-ID: m10pJLF-0000bIC@druid.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thus spake Don Baccus
> At 09:30 PM 6/1/99 -0400, D'Arcy" "J.M." Cain wrote:
> >I heard back from Paul Vixie and he says that it should be possible to
> >store two values in a unique index if they differ only in netbits. I
> >am sending a patch in.
>
> I've stayed out of this discussion, but Paul makes a lot of
> sense. They're NOT the same networks...

Agreed. My only point was that using the fields was probably a bad
idea anyway and, if you did, allowing both then made even less sense
but that's more of design issue.

In any case, if someone wants the protection, they can always add a unique
index on host(field).

--
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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1999-06-02 23:35:11 Re: [HACKERS] Re:ORDER BY
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-06-02 21:21:28 Re: [HACKERS] current CVS snapshot of pgsql crash ...