Re: IPv6 address parsing for inet/cidr types (take II) - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: IPv6 address parsing for inet/cidr types (take II)
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.44.0304140103520.6904-100000@peter.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: IPv6 address parsing for inet/cidr types (take II)  (Michael Graff <explorer@flame.org>)
Responses Re: IPv6 address parsing for inet/cidr types (take II)
List pgsql-patches
Michael Graff writes:

> One other poster suggested they should be two data types, which I half
> agree with.  There are advantages of being able to use IPv4 or IPv6
> addresses in the same column, so I wouldn't have to have two tables
> for host <-> address mappings, for instance.  I'm undecided on which
> is better, but so far I've used the inet with ipv4 and 6 data type
> once and found them useful under one data type.

Perhaps we can make "inet" take both and then define domains "inet4" and
"inet6" over it that only take one kind.

--
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net


pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Reserved Key Words, Using "path" as a table name
Next
From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne"
Date:
Subject: Re: Modern C++ Interface