Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Without the flag, it's okay for cidr-to-inet to be a > >> binary-compatible (no function) conversion. However, inet-to-cidr > >> has to either zero out bits to the right of the netmask, or error out > >> if any are set. Joachim Wieland posted a patch that makes the > >> coercion function just silently zero out any such bits. That's OK > >> with me, but does anyone want to argue for an error? > > > Zero the bits if it's an explicit cast, raise an error if not. > > I know there's precedent for such behavior in the SQL spec, but it > always seemed pretty ugly to me :-(. The patch-as-committed just > silently zeroes the bits during any inet->cidr cast. I'll change it > if there's consensus that that's a bad idea, but I don't really see > a reason to.
I agree. Let's do the zeroing and see if people complain about it. Throwing an error seems extreme. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
