Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes:
> tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane) writes:
>> We already have the portions of this behavior that seem to me to be
>> likely to be worthwhile (such as NULL elimination and compression of
>> large field values). Shaving a couple bytes from a bigint doesn't
>> strike me as interesting.
> I expect that there would be value in doing this with the inet type,
> to distinguish between the smaller IPv4 addresses and the larger IPv6
> ones. We use the inet type (surprise! ;-)) and would benefit from
> having it "usually smaller" (notably since IPv6 addresses are a
> relative rarity, at this point).
Uh ... inet already does that. Now it's true you could save a byte or
two more with a bespoke IPv4-only type, but the useful lifespan of such a
type probably isn't very long.
regards, tom lane
