Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess
| От | Greg Stark |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 87mzhktb9b.fsf@stark.xeocode.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess
Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
I have a question in a different direction. What is the meaning of the network mask in the inet data type anyways? Hosts don't have network masks, only networks. If we could store inet in four bytes it would be vastly more efficient both in disk space usage and in cpu at runtime. I think it would also clear up the perpetual user confusion between the two datatypes. I posit that the main source of the confusion is that currently Postgres lets you use inet for everything, even if what you're really storing is a network address range which is what the cidr datatype is really for. -- greg
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: