Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.187])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD3F02E48F8
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:19:59 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 98508-06 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:19:30 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A72D52E46E4
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:19:54 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m0BFJp7Q013180;
	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:19:52 -0500 (EST)
To: Pomarede Nicolas <npomarede@corp.free.fr>
cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Best way to index IP data? 
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801111025390.30762@localhost> 
References: <200801101614.54729.kevin@kevinkempterllc.com>
	<DA6DE53A-2F69-46F3-8C96-B341ADCDDFAF@blighty.com>
	<36e682920801101541o7626bbddj428617144240c554@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0801111025390.30762@localhost>
Comments: In-reply-to Pomarede Nicolas <npomarede@corp.free.fr>
	message dated "Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:31:26 +0100"
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:19:51 -0500
Message-ID: <13179.1200064791@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200801/66
X-Sequence-Number: 28305

Pomarede Nicolas <npomarede@corp.free.fr> writes:
> As ip4r seems to work very well with postgresql, is there a possibility to 
> see it merged in postgresql, to have a native 4 bytes IPv4 address date 
> type ?

Given that the world is going to IPv6 in a few years whether you like it
or not, that seems pretty darn short-sighted to me.

What would make sense IMHO is to adapt the improved indexing support in
ip4r to work on the native inet/cidr types.

			regards, tom lane