Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
>> While there may not be a user-visible function for next-network-part,
>> that hardly matters since the special-indexqual stuff isn't user-visible
>> either.
> Well, since I'm making an indexqual clause, I do need a
Jim Mercer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> while you are in there, can you cahnge the print functions so that they
> are consistent?
I believe they are consistent in 7.1; leastwise, you will have to make
a pretty good argument why we should change them again. We had a very
long discussion that led
Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I have right now is rewriting a <<= b to use index plan :
> (a >= network(b)) && ( a <= broadcast(b) )
> However, that breaks down, since (for example)
> if a=10.1.2.3/32 and b = 10.1.2.0/24, broadcast(b) will be 10.1.2.255/24,
> but 10.1.2.255/24 i
Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I noticed current wierd behaviour of a less/greater than comparisons of
> things involving inet/cidr:
> 10.1.2.3/8 is considered to be less than 10.0.0.0/32
And what's wrong with that? Essentially this comes from the conclusion
that 10/8 is less than 1
