Re: Why so few built-in range types? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dimitri Fontaine
Subject Re: Why so few built-in range types?
Date
Msg-id m2vcpxiaij.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why so few built-in range types?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> IIRC, a lot of the basic behavior of the inet/cidr types was designed by
> Paul Vixie (though he's not to blame for their I/O presentation).
> So I'm inclined to doubt that they're as broken as Stephen claims.

The ip4r extension's main use case is range lookups.  You get an ip and
want to know what range it's in:  GiST indexing makes that operation
damn fast, and the ip4r datatype is quite flexible about what a range
is.  Apparently core types are solving other problems, that I never had
to solve myself, so I never used them.

Installing ip4r in a database is routine operation, I could accept
having that by default without blinking now.

Regards,
-- 
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Re: Why so few built-in range types?
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Command Triggers