Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 03:07:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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?) It was correct, but not as of 8.3. Considering you could save a whole one byte by not storing the netmask (well, maybe more depending on alignment considerations), the complaint level is unjustified. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
