Re: [HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-12-03 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Hi, I wanted to craft an answer here and Peter nailed it before I could. I use ip4r in a bunch of different projects and environments, it's doing a perfect job, it's simple to use and damn efficient. The ipv6 support is on the way, parts of it are already be in the CVS at

Re: [HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-12-03 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes: IIRC, a lot of the basic behavior of the inet/cidr types was designed by Paul Vixie (though he's not to blame for their I/O presentation). So I'm inclined to doubt that they're as broken as Stephen claims. The ip4r extension's main use case is range lookups.

Re: [HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-12-02 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On ons, 2011-11-30 at 17:56 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote: Erm, isn't there a contrib type that already does all that for you..? ip4r or whatever? Just saying, if you're looking for that capability.. Oh, huh, good to

Re: [HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-12-02 Thread Stephen Frost
* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote: - ip4 really only stores a single address, not a netmask, not sometimes a netmask, or sometimes a range, or sometimes a network and an address, or whatever. That really seems like the most common use case, and no matter what you do with the other

Re: [HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-12-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: - ip4 is fixed-length, so it's much faster.  (Obviously, this is living on borrowed time.  Who knows.) Fair point. - Conversely, it might be considered a feature that ip4 only stores IPv4 addresses. True, although this

Re: [HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-12-02 Thread karavelov
- Цитат от Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us), на 02.12.2011 в 05:21 - Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote: I don't have any particular care about if cidr has indexing support or not. I'm certainly not *against*

Re: [HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-12-01 Thread Stephen Frost
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote: Erm, isn't there a contrib type that already does all that for you..? ip4r or whatever?  Just saying, if you're looking for that capability.. Oh, huh, good to know. Still,

Re: [HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-12-01 Thread karavelov
- Цитат от Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net), на 01.12.2011 в 15:56 - * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote: Erm, isn't there a contrib type that already does all that for you..? ip4r or whatever?  Just

Re: [HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-12-01 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:12 AM, karave...@mail.bg wrote: I do not think that adding index support to a datatype classifies as semantic change that will break backward compatibility. Me neither. The ip4r type also supports ranges that aren't on CIDR-block boundaries, which probably isn't

Re: [HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-12-01 Thread Stephen Frost
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: Me neither. The ip4r type also supports ranges that aren't on CIDR-block boundaries, which probably isn't something that makes sense to incorporate into cidr. But not everyone needs that, and some people might also need support for ipv6 CIDR

Re: [HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-12-01 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote: I don't have any particular care about if cidr has indexing support or not.  I'm certainly not *against* it, except insofar as it encourages use of a data type that really could probably be better (by being more like

Re: [HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-12-01 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote: I don't have any particular care about if cidr has indexing support or not. I'm certainly not *against* it, except insofar as it encourages use of a data type that really could

Re: [HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-11-30 Thread Jeff Davis
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 12:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: One thing that bothered me while looking at the range types patch is that it seemed you'd been mighty conservative about creating built-in range types. During development, I didn't want to juggle the OIDs for too many range types. That was

Re: [HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-11-30 Thread Tom Lane
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes: On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 12:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: In particular, I don't understand why there's not a standard float8range type; that seems like a pretty common case. I'd have also expected to see a standard textrange type. What was the rationale for

Re: [HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-11-30 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote: One that I'd like to see is an IP address type, but that's complicated because inet and cidr support netmasks. A CIDR address defines a range all by itself, without packing any other type on top. It just needs GIST support,

Re: [HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-11-30 Thread Stephen Frost
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: A CIDR address defines a range all by itself, without packing any other type on top. It just needs GIST support, and an indexable operator for contains or is contained by; then, you can define an exclusion constraint over a CIDR column to enforce a

Re: [HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-11-30 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote: Erm, isn't there a contrib type that already does all that for you..? ip4r or whatever?  Just saying, if you're looking for that capability.. Oh, huh, good to know. Still, I'm not sure why you need to load a separate type

[HACKERS] Why so few built-in range types?

2011-11-29 Thread Tom Lane
One thing that bothered me while looking at the range types patch is that it seemed you'd been mighty conservative about creating built-in range types. In particular, I don't understand why there's not a standard float8range type; that seems like a pretty common case. I'd have also expected to