On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 10:24:48PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> FYI, 8.2 will have this and more based on this applied patch:
>
> Add INET/CIDR operators: and, or, not, plus int8, minus int8, and inet
> minus inet.
I know, I'm already using it :-)
Thanks,
Patrick
FYI, 8.2 will have this and more based on this applied patch:
Add INET/CIDR operators: and, or, not, plus int8, minus int8, and inet
minus inet.
Stephen R. van den Berg
---
Patrick
Patrick Welche wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 06:36:56AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > This has been saved for the 8.2 release:
>
> It isn't actually a patch for application yet ;-) It is the function in
> a state that is easy to test. I take it that as I have basically had
> no comments
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 06:36:56AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> This has been saved for the 8.2 release:
It isn't actually a patch for application yet ;-) It is the function in
a state that is easy to test. I take it that as I have basically had
no comments back, I will just go ahead and make
This has been saved for the 8.2 release:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
---
Patrick Welche wrote:
> Ilya Kovalenko posted some code at in a thread starting at
>
> http://archives.postgresql.
Patrick Welche wrote:
>Comments anyone?
Is incrementing an inet address a valid thing to do, or is its
meaning too open to interpretation?
How about either a pair of functions, one for incrementing the
network and another for the host, or a combined function that allows
you to work with both part
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:00AM -, Andrew - Supernews wrote:
> On 2005-09-06, Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Now with:
> >
> > test=# select '192.168.0.0/24'::inet + 1;
> > ERROR: Trying to increment a network (192.168.0.0/24) rather than a host
>
> What possible justificati
On 2005-09-06, Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now with:
>
> test=# select '192.168.0.0/24'::inet + 1;
> ERROR: Trying to increment a network (192.168.0.0/24) rather than a host
What possible justification is there for this behaviour?
> test=# select '192.168.0.1/24'::inet + -1;
> ER
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 08:10:16PM +0100, Patrick Welche wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 03:02:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > * Allow INET + INT4 to increment the host part of the address, or
> > > throw an error on overflow
> >
> > > I think th
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 03:02:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Allow INET + INT4 to increment the host part of the address, or
> > throw an error on overflow
>
> > I think that the naively coded function attached does what is needed, e.g.,
>
> What
Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Allow INET + INT4 to increment the host part of the address, or
> throw an error on overflow
> I think that the naively coded function attached does what is needed, e.g.,
What happened to the IPv6 case? Also, I think you need to reject CIDR
inputs
Ilya Kovalenko posted some code at in a thread starting at
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-04/msg00417.php
which lead to the TODO item:
* Allow INET + INT4 to increment the host part of the address, or
throw an error on overflow
I think that the naively coded function atta
12 matches
Mail list logo
