Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.187])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FAAE2E323A
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:07:45 -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 08148-10 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:07:38 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91CB72E023A
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:07:40 -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 m0BK7cKx024045;
	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:07:38 -0500 (EST)
To: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Best way to index IP data? 
In-reply-to: <20080111162747.GT5294@mathom.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>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
	message dated "Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:27:49 -0500"
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:07:38 -0500
Message-ID: <24044.1200082058@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200801/74
X-Sequence-Number: 28313

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.

			regards, tom lane