Tom Lane wrote:
>Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>
>
>>Not sure how serious this is since we have gotten few complaints about
>>it but clearly it should be fixed.
>>
>>
>
>Personally I'm inclined to leave it for 8.1. The inet/cidr code is
>really designed around the assumption that these datatypes are
>interchangeable, and I suspect that enforcing a stronger distinction
>will actually take much more wide-ranging changes than just this.
>Do all of the functions on inet/cidr take care to deliver a value that
>is both correctly marked and declared as the correct type? I doubt it.
>It needs some thought not just a band-aid ...
>
>
>
>
Yeah.
I am not sure I understand the intention, but I should have thought
there was a good case for clearing the bits past the mask on conversion
from either text or inet, rather than rejecting or invalidly copying.
As you say, it needs some thought.
cheers
andrew