Chris Angelico writes:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's hard to muster much excitement about that when we've already
>> got "numeric".
> True, but I wasn't able (with 9.1, so that might have changed since)
> to add inet to numeric. Maybe that would be easier?
There's n
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>> Or alternatively, does PostgreSQL have any integer type larger than
>> 64-bit bigint? I've become accustomed to using bignums in most of my
>> programming; arbitrary-precision integers allow all sorts of handy
>> flexibi
Chris Angelico writes:
> Or alternatively, does PostgreSQL have any integer type larger than
> 64-bit bigint? I've become accustomed to using bignums in most of my
> programming; arbitrary-precision integers allow all sorts of handy
> flexibilities. Are there any plans to add bignums (something li
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:34 PM, George Shuklin
wrote:
> But IPv6 is differ. Let's assume we wants to get 'next' /64 range. Current
> range is inet'2a00:ab00:0:1/64'. We want next.
>
> Postgres do not allow adding inet + inet, so we need to add natural number.
> But 'next' /64 is 'just' 2^64. And
