Chris Browne <cbbrowne@xxxxxxx> writes: > tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Tom Lane) writes: >> We already have the portions of this behavior that seem to me to be >> likely to be worthwhile (such as NULL elimination and compression of >> large field values). Shaving a couple bytes from a bigint doesn't >> strike me as interesting. > I expect that there would be value in doing this with the inet type, > to distinguish between the smaller IPv4 addresses and the larger IPv6 > ones. We use the inet type (surprise! ;-)) and would benefit from > having it "usually smaller" (notably since IPv6 addresses are a > relative rarity, at this point). Uh ... inet already does that. Now it's true you could save a byte or two more with a bespoke IPv4-only type, but the useful lifespan of such a type probably isn't very long. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
