Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com> writes:
> For a replacement type, how important is it that it be completely
> compatible with the existing inet/cidr types? Is anyone actually using
> inet types with a non-cidr mask?
If you check the archives you'll discover that our current inet/cidr
types were largely designed and implemented by Paul Vixie (yes, that
Vixie). I'm disinclined to second-guess Paul about the external
definition of these types; I just want to rationalize the internal
representation a bit. In particular we've got some issues about
conversions between the two types ...
regards, tom lane