Dave Page wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 2:22 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> >> On 03/18/2011 09:18 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net>
> >>> ?wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> +<literal>0.0.0.0/0</literal> ?(<quote>all balls</>) represents all
> >>>> + ? ? ? IPv4 addresses, and<literal>::</literal> ?represents
> >>>> + ? ? ? all IPv6 addresses.
> >>>>
> >>>> Umm, isn't there a missing netmask there? The IPv6 analog of 0.0.0.0/0 is
> >>>> surely ::/0 (or I would usually write it ::0/0).
> >>>
> >>> "all balls" seems like a colloquialism best avoided in our documentation.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's already there, although I agree it's infelicitous.
> >
> > I vote for taking it out. ?I think that could be interpreted as inappropriate.
>
> I agree.
OK, removed.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +