On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:07:38 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | 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. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
