Re: [HACKERS] New INET and CIDR types
От | darcy@druid.net (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] New INET and CIDR types |
Дата | |
Msg-id | m0zW1CE-0000emC@druid.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] New INET and CIDR types (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] New INET and CIDR types
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Thus spake Bruce Momjian > > The INET type is now for either hosts or hosts plus networks. The > > code is not quite perfect yet but it compiles and works if you enter > > a host as x.x.x.x/32. We'll try to improve it before 6.4 but at > > least the catalogues are set up so we can fine tune the type without > > doing an initdb or changing the user API. > > We have to get it working OK in the next day, then any changes go into > post 6.4 minor releases. We have regression tests and can't be changing > things. It does work. More importantly we have the catalogues and API nailed down. There are some effeciencies and fine tuning that could be done but I think what we have is good enough that documentation is now more of a priority than code. > I would like the INET type to not display/require the /32 anymore. That's done. The only thing is that now you have to manually put the /32 on input. I'll fix that very soon. > > Between 6.4 and 6.5 we'll work on improving the type. While the > > catalogues won't change, we can modify the underlying code. The > > decision, which we should really make now for the documentation, > > is what type to make it. Remember that we identified 3 types, INET, > > IHOST and CHOST. With the name change we can call the first one CIDR > > now. The question is, what type should the new inet type represent, > > IHOST or CHOST? > > > > IHOST is meant to hold a host only. To specify a host and the > > network information using IHOST would require also using CIDR. > > > > CHOST is meant to hold a host and network information in the same > > type. It can hold an IHOST by itself if desired. There are > > functions to extract the various components such as host, netmask, > > broadcast address and mask length. > > People could just put a netmask in the field, so INET seems more > generic. They could. As I have said I wouldn't. If I had to store a netmask alone I would store it as a masklen in an integer. To each his own though. What we have gives maximum flexibility I think. > Functionality-wise, I like CHOST. No one has objected so I will go forward on that basis. > > Bruce, I was thinking that since cidr.c consists of a single function > > and it uses most of the code in inet.c anyway, why don't we just fold it > > into inet.c instead of having a whole file for it? > > OK. Will you do it or shall I? -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 424 2871 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: