I'm constructing a new type "ip4" as a unified replacement to inet and
cidr,
to hopefully relieve some of the confusion involving those types.
Would anyone be interested?

Mark

Mon, 31 May 1999 11:46:56 -0400
Mark Volpe <mvolpe@eos.ncsu.edu>
New IP address datatype
> I'm constructing a new type "ip4" as a unified replacement to inet and
> cidr,
> to hopefully relieve some of the confusion involving those types.
> Would anyone be interested?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 

But they are the same, except for output, right?  We discussed the
having a unified type, but could not figure out how to output things
properly.  I recommend you see the huge discussion on the hackers list
about these types in the October/November 1998 timeframe.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Mon, 31 May 1999 12:20:37 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] New IP address datatype
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> I recommend you see the huge discussion on the hackers list
> about these types in the October/November 1998 timeframe.

Yup ... and note that the existing types were designed partly on the
advice of Paul Vixie, who knows a thing or three about IP addressing.

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 31 May 1999 13:21:16 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] New IP address datatype 
On Mon, 31 May 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I recommend you see the huge discussion on the hackers list
> > about these types in the October/November 1998 timeframe.
> 
> Yup ... and note that the existing types were designed partly on the
> advice of Paul Vixie, who knows a thing or three about IP addressing.

Have to agree here...what we have now was prompted, and, in large part,
designed by Paul Vixie, and *that* was after some major discussions on the
lists concerning how to implement.

I think there would have to be some very strong arguments for changing it
now, as well as opening discussions with Paul on this...in alot of ways,
its his arena...

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Mon, 31 May 1999 17:04:40 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] New IP address datatype 
Thus spake Mark Volpe
> I'm constructing a new type "ip4" as a unified replacement to inet and
> cidr,
> to hopefully relieve some of the confusion involving those types.
> Would anyone be interested?

Yikes!  Please be very careful.  We went through a lot of work to get
it right.  The fact that there are two types was a bit of a compromise
to get what everyone wanted into the system.  Note that the underlying
routines are exactly the same anyway.  The difference is all in the
input and output and pretty minor at that but the differences are
essential.

If you are talking about the recent discussions, we do have some issues
to resolve but making one type won't clarify the situation.  I think
we are pretty sure about what to do.  Someone just needs to find time
to do it.  

If you found the dual types confusing, maybe the problem is in the
documentation.  I am assuming from your offer that you have spent some
time studying the type and understand the point of both so perhaps
you can attack the documentation instead.

Oh, and if ip4 means IPv4, that's a step backwards.  The current types
are designed to be easily extended to handle IPv6 in the same types.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net>   |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.

Mon, 31 May 1999 19:51:06 -0400 (EDT)
"D'Arcy" "J.M." Cain <darcy@druid.net>
Re: [HACKERS] New IP address datatype
Thus spake Bruce Momjian
> > I'm constructing a new type "ip4" as a unified replacement to inet and
> > cidr,
> But they are the same, except for output, right?  We discussed the

And input.  Some values that are valid for inet are not valid cidr.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net>   |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.

Mon, 31 May 1999 19:52:19 -0400 (EDT)
"D'Arcy" "J.M." Cain <darcy@druid.net>
Re: [HACKERS] New IP address datatype
Thus spake Tom Lane
> Yup ... and note that the existing types were designed partly on the
> advice of Paul Vixie, who knows a thing or three about IP addressing.

Speaking of which, I wonder what Paul would say about the primary key
discussion.  Maybe I'll drop him a note.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net>   |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.

Mon, 31 May 1999 19:53:33 -0400 (EDT)
"D'Arcy" "J.M." Cain <darcy@druid.net>
Re: [HACKERS] New IP address datatype
"D'Arcy" "J.M." Cain <darcy@druid.net> writes:
> Speaking of which, I wonder what Paul would say about the primary key
> discussion.  Maybe I'll drop him a note.

Good thought, if he's not reading the mailing list anymore (which seems
likely given the volume...).

I still assert that indexes need to behave the same as the comparison
operators --- but maybe the comparison operators ought to behave
differently for INET and CIDR types?  It seems reasonable that
the netmask should be ignored when comparing one, but not the other...

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 31 May 1999 20:14:33 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] New IP address datatype 