Greg Stark wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>
> > am thinking we should support only inet + inet, like this:
> >
> > SELECT '1.2.3.4'::inet + '0.0.1.2'::inet;
>
> I don't think inet+inet makes any sense.
>
> I think inet+int4 should work by adding to the host address and overflowing if
> it exceeds the network mask.
>
> Ie,
>
> 10.0.0.0/24 + 1 = 10.0.0.1/24
> 10.0.0.255/24 + 1 => overflow
>
> Or
>
> 10.1/16 + 1 = 10.1.0.1/16
> 10.1/16 + 16384 = 10.1.64.0/16
> 10.1/16 + 65536 => overflow
So, do not overflow? We can do that. Another idea Tom had was creating
a function that increments/decrements the address or the network portion
of the address, and if you increment past the non-network portion that
overflows too.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073