Unix Technical Forum

Re: [BUGS] Bug in create operator and/or initdb

This is a discussion on Re: [BUGS] Bug in create operator and/or initdb within the pgsql Hackers forums, part of the PostgreSQL category; --> Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com> writes: > For a replacement type, how important is it that it be completely > compatible ...


Go Back   Unix Technical Forum > Database Server Software > PostgreSQL > pgsql Hackers

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-11-2008, 03:32 AM
Tom Lane
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: [BUGS] Bug in create operator and/or initdb

Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com> 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 ...

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0
www.UnixAdminTalk.com