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 ...
| |||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||
| 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 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|