On 10/12/16 4:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > The larger picture here is that we got very little thanks when we squeezed > IPv6 into the pre-existing inet datatype; there's a large number of people > who just said "no thanks" and started using the add-on ip4r type instead.
I don't think that is a correct account. People used the ip4r extension because it was faster, had more functionality, and didn't have those stupid network masks to worry about. ip4r does in fact also provide a type that can contain ip4 and ip6, which one ought to use nowadays. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
