On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
Steve Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
For a replacement type, how important is it that it be completely
compatible with the existing inet/cidr types? Is anyone actually using
inet types with a non-cidr mask?
If you check the archives you'll discover that our current inet/cidr
types were largely designed and implemented by Paul Vixie (yes, that
Vixie). I'm disinclined to second-guess Paul about the external
definition of these types; I just want to rationalize the internal
representation a bit. In particular we've got some issues about
conversions between the two types ...
Please do **NOT** break the external representations. We had enough fights
about that 2-3 releases ago, and I personally don't want to revisit them.
Yes, we do flakey things with inet on the masking stuff.
LER
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
