Re: [HACKERS] Re: inet/cidr/bind

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Bruce Momjian
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Re: inet/cidr/bind
Дата
Msg-id 199810200421.AAA29108@candle.pha.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Re: inet/cidr/bind  (darcy@druid.net (D'Arcy J.M. Cain))
Список pgsql-hackers
> Thus spake Bruce Momjian
> > If you define a fuction that can take inet or cidr type, I recommend you
> > define a typedef called something like "inet_or_cidr" that is the same
> > as inet, and use that in functions that can take either type.
> 
> Perhaps.  We can look at that 6.4++.  For now there will be redundancy.
> Afterwards we'll look at how to fold them.

I hope you realize that that 6.4++ would have to be 6.5.  We typically
don't to system table changes as part of minor releases, unless there is
a really good reason.  It is hard to do for us and for the users.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: darcy@druid.net (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Re: inet/cidr/bind
Следующее
От: "Thomas G. Lockhart"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Postgres - Y2K Compliant....Yes or No