Re: [HACKERS] Re: inet/cidr/bind - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From darcy@druid.net (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: inet/cidr/bind
Date
Msg-id m0zVfog-0000emC@druid.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Re: inet/cidr/bind  ("Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thus spake Matthew N. Dodd
> I'm voting that the rest of the peanut gallary sit down and allow
> PostgreSQL to adopt Vixie's world vision of the INET type.  If after the
> release it is found to be lacking it can be addressed then.

Actually, we already have.  The discussion is only over adding a second
type and what, exactly, it should be.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net>   |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What about LIMIT in SELECT ?
Next
From: Paul A Vixie
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: inet/cidr/bind