Greg Stark wrote:
>
> This looks very strange to me:
>
> staging=> select '1.10'::cidr;
> cidr
> -
> 1.10.0.0/16
> (1 row)
>
>
> The normal way to read "1.10" would be as synonymous with "1.0.0.10". This is
> even mandated by the POSIX spec for getaddrinfo and company. q
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 10:14:42PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't know if it's ever been blessed by a formal standard
>
> It's blessed by POSIX:
>
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/inet_addr.html
Yep, that's lifted almost
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 06:38:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > The normal way to read "1.10" would be as synonymous with "1.0.0.10".
> >
> > That might be the case for IPv6, but it's never been a standard
> >
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 06:38:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The normal way to read "1.10" would be as synonymous with "1.0.0.10".
>
> That might be the case for IPv6, but it's never been a standard
> convention for IPv4; and even for IPv6 it doesn't make
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The normal way to read "1.10" would be as synonymous with "1.0.0.10".
That might be the case for IPv6, but it's never been a standard
convention for IPv4; and even for IPv6 it doesn't make any sense
for a network (as opposed to host) number.
This looks very strange to me:
staging=> select '1.10'::cidr;
cidr
-
1.10.0.0/16
(1 row)
The normal way to read "1.10" would be as synonymous with "1.0.0.10". This is
even mandated by the POSIX spec for getaddrinfo and company. q
--
greg
---(end
