Re: IPv4 addresses, unsigned integers, space - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: IPv4 addresses, unsigned integers, space
Date
Msg-id 22631.1058281656@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to IPv4 addresses, unsigned integers, space  (Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>)
List pgsql-general
Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> If I switched from signed integers to unsigned integers (and from INET
> to "real" IPv4 addresses, consisting of the relevant 32 bits only) I
> think I could save about 25% of my table size.

> Does PostgreSQL already implement these data types?  I don't think so.
> If I succeed in implementing them, would you accept a patch?

I doubt you will find any enthusiasm for a dumbed-down INET type,
considering that IPv6 capability will be increasingly necessary in
the future.

As for unsigned ints, I have no objection to 'em in principle, but
in practice we have more than enough problems already deducing the
appropriate type for a numeric constant.  Unless you've got a super
new solution to that set of problems, adding unsigned ints to the
numeric hierarchy is going to be unmanageable.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Robert J. Sanford, Jr."
Date:
Subject: Re: Are you frustrated with PostgreSQL
Next
From: "scott.marlowe"
Date:
Subject: Re: Are you frustrated with PostgreSQL