> I suspect that the right thing to do is to kill the inet type
> entirely, and replace it with a special case of cidr. (And
> possibly then to kill cidr and replace it with something that
> can be indexed more effectively.)
Yes, which is actually what brought this to my attention.
I'll be sending an rtree index implementation shortly for review/comments.
> For a replacement type, how important is it that it be
> completely compatible with the existing inet/cidr types? Is
> anyone actually using inet types with a non-cidr mask?
I wouldn't think so, anyone I've spoken with has come up with other ways of managing that kind of info, because of, as
youmentioned, it's lack of proper index methods.
Kind Regards,
John Hansen
