On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> > Maybe we should create a new type 'inet6'???
>
> I'd lean towards allowing the existing inet and cidr types to store both
> v4 and v6 addresses, if at all possible. Is there a good motivation for
> doing otherwise?
Different storage for ipv4 vs. ipv6 (why punish ipv4 users with an extra
96 bits of storage?). Use of ipv4 and ipv6 should be mutually
exclusive. Extra code in inet type causing bloat.
>
> regards, tom lane
Gavin