On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 05:58:01PM +0200, Kristian Larsson wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 11:37:02AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > I think the whole thing is a bit of a crock; adding integers to inet > > addresses doesn't make a lot of sense logically. Perhaps what is > > really wanted is functions on CIDR net identifiers, for instance [...] > For me, as a network engineer, adding an integer to a inet feels > quite natural. Inet is just another representation of a integer > anyway... so I'd really not have a problem with having either a > int16 or being able to add numerics to inets :)
Indeed, it seems similar to the (somewhat arbitrary) decision that adding an int to a date results that many days being added to it. Timestamp INTERVALs may be more flexible, but it's a useful shortcut that I use quite often. Something to convert to/from a NUMERIC value and INET would seem useful as well. -- Sam http://samason.me.uk/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
