On 02/23/11 1:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The question is does he actually have a use-case for address ranges that
> don't correspond to legal CIDR ranges, but do nonetheless have an
> identifiable lower boundary, upper boundary, and no holes? And if so,
> what is it? The whole thing looked to me like somebody inventing
> requirements with little or no study of what they really needed.
indeed. i had to poke around the ban tables of MyBB the other day (a
php bbs that works reasonably well* on postgresql), and they were
storing IP bans as strings like 1.2.*.* or 1.2.3.4-1.2.4.5 or whatever.
UGH.
* it works mostly on PG but has some bugs around the edges of the admin
stuff. the worst ones I've found fixes for and submitted back to the
mybb team, but mostly I'm too lazy and just work around them