Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's been proposed before, and rejected before, on the grounds that
>> since it doesn't support IPv6 its days are numbered.
> Actually, that's not true.
Ah, my information is obsolete.
> Quoting from the linked readme file,
> : IP4R therefore supports six distinct data types:
> : ip4 - a single IPv4 address
> : ip4r - an arbitrary range of IPv4 addresses
> : ip6 - a single IPv6 address
> : ip6r - an arbitrary range of IPv6 addresses
> : ipaddress - a single IPv4 or IPv6 address
> : iprange - an arbitrary range of IPv4 or IPv6 addresses
So the obvious question today is whether this isn't duplicative of the
range datatype stuff. IOW, why wouldn't we be better off to invent
inetrange and call it good?
regards, tom lane