On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:52:19PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 4. My personal preference would be that if any change is made it would
> be to insist on an unabbreviated dotted quad for ip4. Alternatively, we
I really think this is the wrong way to approach it. The 127.1
convention is common, and valid. To disallow it because you haven't
experienced it is pretty egocentric. If you would instead object on the
grounds of it being difficult to implement, or non portable, or
outright incorrect, I would be fine with it. But the attitude of "I've
never seen this, and I don't like it, regardless of the documentation"
just sucks.
> need to make sure that whatever we do is consistent. That might not be
> possible, however, if different platforms or different library calls
> behave differently.
In how many places are we using inet_aton? I see in the docs:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/datatype-net-types.html#DATATYPE-INET
It looks like the abbreviated addresses there refer to networks (like
the RFC says). Additionally, if you give it '192.168.1/32', you get
192.168.1.0/32. This is even weirder than I expected.
I'd really like to hear from others what their opinions on this are.
alex
--
alex@posixnap.net
Alex J. Avriette, Shepherd of wayward Database Administrators
"We are paying through the nose to be ignorant." - Larry Ellison
