Re: [HACKERS] Definitional issue for INET types - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Definitional issue for INET types
Date
Msg-id 15629.950802098@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Definitional issue for INET types  (Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE> writes:
> 3) You can't compare inet and cidr because they're two different (albeit
> similar) things. If you want to compare them you have to explicitly cast
> inet to cidr or vice versa according to 1) or 2).

This might in fact be the right answer --- maybe CIDR and INET should
have different comparison semantics.  Right now the two types seem to
share exactly the same operators, which makes me wonder why we have
both.

I don't suppose Paul Vixie is still reading this list.  Someone should
contact him and ask where we went wrong.  Who was our point man on the
network types to begin with?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Lockhart
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Almost there on column aliases
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Definitional issue for INET types