Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> There's apparently a lack of understanding of what exactly are these types
> are supposed to do. Therefore, instead of addressing each bug
> individually, let me first state what I reconstructed as the specification
> of these types, and then add what is currently wrong with it.
This sounds good offhand, but then I never paid a whole lot of attention
to the details originally. Did you go through the original inet/cidr
design discussions (the threads where Paul Vixie was participating)?
I don't believe Paul is subscribed here anymore, but I'd feel a lot
happier if you can contact him and get him to sign off on the clarified
design. Maybe this is what he had in mind all along, or maybe not.
regards, tom lane
PS: You do know who Paul Vixie is, I assume ;-). I can think of few
better-qualified experts in this domain...