Re: [HACKERS] Re: inet/cidr/bind
| От | Paul A Vixie |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Re: inet/cidr/bind |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 199810131608.JAA07284@bb.rc.vix.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Re: inet/cidr/bind (darcy@druid.net (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: inet/cidr/bind
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
> So if it is a network we don't have to fill the whole structure, right?
right.
> What happens on these calls?
>
> inet_cidr_pton(af, "192.5/16", dst, sizeof dst, &bits);
> inet_cidr_pton(af, "192.5/24", dst, sizeof dst, &bits);
> inet_cidr_pton(af, "192.5.5.1/16", dst, sizeof dst, &bits);
>
> I'm guessing that the return and bits for each would be (2, 16), (3, 24)
> and (4, 16). Is that correct or since they are all ipv4 addresses would
> the size always be 4?
yes. :-). i mean, the former. {2,16}, {3,24}, and {4,16}. ipv4 is the
family of the address but does not dictate the size of the prefix. i still
don't want to touch octets which aren't specified, any more than i would
want to emit them in _ntop(). but that's my preference speaking -- what is
yours?
> > int
> > inet_net_pton(int af, const char *src,
>
> inet_cidr_pton?
oops, yeah. you can see where i copied this stuff from.
> Does this mean we need to add a size element to the inet structure?
i think so, yes.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: