On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:07:38 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us> writes:
> > Well, a native IPv6 type would also be nice; inet is ridiculously
> > bloated for both IPv4 *and* IPv6.
>
> Nonsense. 3 bytes overhead on a 16-byte address is not "ridiculously
> bloated", especially if you want a netmask with it.
Besides, there are many cases where you want to track both ipv4 and
ipv6 for the same purpose and requiring two different fields would be
less than ideal.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
