Re: [HACKERS] Re: CIDR/IP types. Was: [GENERAL] big numbers] - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas G. Lockhart
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: CIDR/IP types. Was: [GENERAL] big numbers]
Date
Msg-id 35EFFF1C.516F458F@alumni.caltech.edu
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CIDR/IP types. Was: [GENERAL] big numbers]  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Re: CIDR/IP types. Was: [GENERAL] big numbers]  (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>)
Re: [HACKERS] Re: CIDR/IP types. Was: [GENERAL] big numbers]  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> I would be glad to help with integrating it.  We need a decision,
> people.  Who do we want to do this, and how are we going to handle
> integrating this into the beta, if we want to?
>
> BTW, does pg_upgrade work for people.  That may be a quick fix for the
> beta people to get these new system types WITHOUT dump/reload.

Better yet, they _should_ use pg_upgrade, so it gets some beta testing
too :)

I can help with making the types built-in, once there is code ready.
However, until we finish tracking down the indexing problems I'd like to
stay away from unrelated changes to the catalogs and backend code to
avoid confusing the issue.

Now that I think about it, that would have probably included the
snprintf changes, since now people trying to do debugging may not be
able to build with a new tree until that gets integrated...

                     - Tom

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Minor bugs and a formatting gripe
Next
From: The Hermit Hacker
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: CIDR/IP types. Was: [GENERAL] big numbers]