Re: New cast between inet/cidr and bytea
От | Zoltan Boszormenyi |
---|---|
Тема | Re: New cast between inet/cidr and bytea |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 465EF1C0.6000308@cybertec.at обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: New cast between inet/cidr and bytea (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: New cast between inet/cidr and bytea
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane írta: > Zoltan Boszormenyi <zb@cybertec.at> writes: > >> Bruce Momjian írta: >> >>> What is the use case for such a cast? >>> > > >> The application doesn't want to parse the textual IP address >> when all the parsing and checking intelligence is already there >> in the inet/cidr type checks. >> > > This presumes exactly the assumption we are questioning, namely that > there's a universal binary representation for these things. But there is: network order. > There might > be such for bare IP addresses (ignoring endianness) but the argument > doesn't scale to CIDR. Would you enlighten me why not? > You've also failed to make the case that this > application designer has made a sane judgment about whether avoiding > parsing is a good tradeoff here. > So, reinventing the wheel is always the way to go? Even when the app is actually storing those IP addresses with the type and features PostgreSQL provides? > Also: to the extent that the application is willing to deal with a > Postgres-specific inet/cidr representation (which, in the end, is > what this would be) it can do that *today* using binary output format. > So I'm still not seeing an argument for exposing a cast to bytea. > > regards, tom lane > But the binary output of inet/cidr needs another round of parsing which requires using internal server headers. Would you like a 4/8/16/32 byte output using IP only or IP + fully represented netmask better? Best regards, -- ---------------------------------- Zoltán Böszörményi Cybertec Geschwinde & Schönig GmbH http://www.postgresql.at/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: