Re: [HACKERS] cidr

> On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Paul A Vixie wrote:
>
> > > Also, I would assume we can handle old-style non-cidr address just as
> > > cleanly, so both cidr and non-cidr can use the same type and functions.
> >
> > the implementation i sent around yesterday does this just fine.  or rather
> > it makes useful assumptions if no "/" is given, and it always prints the "/".
>
>     Does anyone have any objections to using Paul's implementation as
> "the base implementation", to be inserted into the main stream code now,
> and built up from there?


It is already being worked on by one of the ip_and_mac developers.  He
is merging the types.  We need him to work on it because he understands
PostgreSQL better.

>
>     Assuming no objections, Paul...can you get your implementation
> merged into the 'main stream code' vs 'contrib' and submit an appropriate
> patch for it?  The sooner we get it into the main stream, the sooner more
> ppl are playing with it, testing it, and suggesting/submitting changes to
> it...

Again, it is being worked on.  I don't think Paul wants to get into
installing in into the main tree.  It is quite a job.  We may need to
increase the max system oid to get us more available oids.

>     And the type is to be a 'CIDR', which is the appropriate
> terminology for what it is...those that need it, will know what it is
> *shrug*

I use IP addresses and didn't know.  I am also hoping we can allow
storage of old and cidr types in the same type, at least superficially.

--
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)