Re: [HACKERS] Re: CIDR/IP types. Was: [GENERAL] big numbers]
От | Thomas G. Lockhart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Re: CIDR/IP types. Was: [GENERAL] big numbers] |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 35EFFF1C.516F458F@alumni.caltech.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: CIDR/IP types. Was: [GENERAL] big numbers] (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: CIDR/IP types. Was: [GENERAL] big numbers]
Re: [HACKERS] Re: CIDR/IP types. Was: [GENERAL] big numbers] |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> I would be glad to help with integrating it. We need a decision, > people. Who do we want to do this, and how are we going to handle > integrating this into the beta, if we want to? > > BTW, does pg_upgrade work for people. That may be a quick fix for the > beta people to get these new system types WITHOUT dump/reload. Better yet, they _should_ use pg_upgrade, so it gets some beta testing too :) I can help with making the types built-in, once there is code ready. However, until we finish tracking down the indexing problems I'd like to stay away from unrelated changes to the catalogs and backend code to avoid confusing the issue. Now that I think about it, that would have probably included the snprintf changes, since now people trying to do debugging may not be able to build with a new tree until that gets integrated... - Tom
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: