Re: Why so few built-in range types?

----- Цитат от Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net), на 01.12.2011 в 15:56 ----- <br /><br />> * Robert Haas
(robertmhaas@gmail.com)wrote: <br />>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Stephen Frost  wrote: <br />>> >
Erm,isn't there a contrib type that already does all that for you..? <br />>> > ip4r or whatever?  Just
saying,if you're looking for that capability.. <br />>> <br />>> Oh, huh, good to know. Still, I'm not sure
whyyou need to load a <br />>> separate type to get this... there's no reason why the built-in CIDR <br
/>>>type couldn't support it. <br />> <br />> The semantics of that type aren't what people actually want
andthere's <br />> been push-back about changing it due to backwards compatibility, etc. <br />> That's my
recollectionof the situation, anyway. I'm sure there's all <br />> kinds of fun talk in the archives about it. <br
/>><br /><br />I have reached one or two times to use build-in inet/cidr types but the lack of <br />indexing
supportfor "contains op" was stopping me - i have used ip4r extension. <br /><br />I do not think that adding index
supportto a datatype classifies as semantic <br />change that will break backward compatibility. <br /><br />Best
regards<br />-- <br />Luben Karavelov