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:

Reply via email to