Michael Stone wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 03:07:38PM -0500, Tom Lane 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. > > Big if, no? There's a very large set of users that *don't* want/need a > netmask, which is why the topic keeps coming back. (Also, according to the > docs, inet requires 24 bytes, which is 50% more than needed; is that not > correct?)
So what this means is that our type oughta be optimized. How about having a separate bit to indicate whether there is a netmask or not, and chop the storage earlier. (I dunno if this already done) Also, with packed varlenas the overhead is reduced AFAIK. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
