Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Steve Crawford
Subject Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report
Date
Msg-id 20030130162205.7EA85103EF@polaris.pinpointresearch.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report
List pgsql-hackers
What about cases where I only want one or the other? Would a simple method
exist to limit input to v4 or v6 only?

Also, what are the implications to functions such as network_sub,
network_cmp, etc. when given mixed v4/v6 inputs as could easily happen if the
two are freely mixed in the same data type?

Cheers,
Steve

On Wednesday 29 January 2003 10:04 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> > Maybe we should create a new type 'inet6'???
>
> I'd lean towards allowing the existing inet and cidr types to store both
> v4 and v6 addresses, if at all possible.  Is there a good motivation for
> doing otherwise?
>
>             regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report