Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report

Steve Crawford <scrawford@pinpointresearch.com>

From: Steve Crawford <scrawford@pinpointresearch.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Cc: "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, "Advocacy" <pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org>
Date: 2003-01-30T16:22:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
What about cases where I only want one or the other? Would a simple method 
exist to limit input to v4 or v6 only?

Also, what are the implications to functions such as network_sub, 
network_cmp, etc. when given mixed v4/v6 inputs as could easily happen if the 
two are freely mixed in the same data type?

Cheers,
Steve

On Wednesday 29 January 2003 10:04 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> > Maybe we should create a new type 'inet6'???
>
> I'd lean towards allowing the existing inet and cidr types to store both
> v4 and v6 addresses, if at all possible.  Is there a good motivation for
> doing otherwise?
>
> 			regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org