Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.182])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0FAD2E305B
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:19:43 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 59337-02 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:19:36 -0400 (AST)
Received: from smaug.vex.net (smaug.vex.net [208.76.104.132])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 227FF2E0122
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:19:39 -0400 (AST)
Received: from dilbert (dilbert.druid.net [207.35.13.14])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smaug.vex.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90F2C17462;
	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:19:36 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:19:35 -0500
From: "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>,
 pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Best way to index IP data?
Message-Id: <20080111151935.40c8d2fd.darcy@druid.net>
In-Reply-To: <24044.1200082058@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <200801101614.54729.kevin@kevinkempterllc.com>
	<DA6DE53A-2F69-46F3-8C96-B341ADCDDFAF@blighty.com>
	<36e682920801101541o7626bbddj428617144240c554@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0801111025390.30762@localhost>
	<13179.1200064791@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20080111162747.GT5294@mathom.us>
	<24044.1200082058@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.3; x86_64--netbsd)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200801/75
X-Sequence-Number: 28314

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:07:38 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us> 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 <darcy@druid.net>         |  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.