Re: Why so few built-in range types?
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why so few built-in range types? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZDcQP3ROn4oqa5LOdR31ozTCnskgU9_ng6Gz65dZgVSw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why so few built-in range types? (karavelov@mail.bg) |
Ответы |
Re: Why so few built-in range types?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:12 AM, <karavelov@mail.bg> wrote: > I do not think that adding index support to a datatype classifies as > semantic > change that will break backward compatibility. Me neither. The ip4r type also supports ranges that aren't on CIDR-block boundaries, which probably isn't something that makes sense to incorporate into cidr. But not everyone needs that, and some people might also need support for ipv6 CIDR blocks, which ip4r doesn't support. So I don't necessarily see the existence of ip4r as a reason why cidr shouldn't have better indexing support. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: