X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304C03A5370 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:08:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 46290-04 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:08:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FFCB3A5310 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:08:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iAU57pfr006588; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:07:52 -0500 (EST) To: Bruce Momjian Cc: "Alexander M. Pravking" , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: TEXT::CIDR/INET::CIDR output confusion In-reply-to: <200411300449.iAU4nkl07211@candle.pha.pa.us> References: <200411300449.iAU4nkl07211@candle.pha.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:49:46 -0500" Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:07:51 -0500 Message-ID: <6587.1101791271@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200411/296 X-Sequence-Number: 19614 Bruce Momjian writes: > I think the original code thought CIDR and INET where identical types > that could be cast with no changes but we are finding that was incorrect. That's what it seems to boil down to. We need to rethink the separation between those datatypes. At the very least, the casts between them cannot both be code-less binary-compatibility casts. regards, tom lane