On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 05:58:01PM +0200, Kristian Larsson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 11:37:02AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I think the whole thing is a bit of a crock; adding integers to inet
> > addresses doesn't make a lot of sense logically. Perhaps what is
> > really wanted is functions on CIDR net identifiers, for instance
[...]
> For me, as a network engineer, adding an integer to a inet feels
> quite natural. Inet is just another representation of a integer
> anyway... so I'd really not have a problem with having either a
> int16 or being able to add numerics to inets :)
Indeed, it seems similar to the (somewhat arbitrary) decision that
adding an int to a date results that many days being added to it.
Timestamp INTERVALs may be more flexible, but it's a useful shortcut
that I use quite often.
Something to convert to/from a NUMERIC value and INET would seem useful
as well.
--
Sam http://samason.me.uk/
