Re: IPv6 address parsing for inet/cidr types (take II)

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Michael Graff writes:
>> One other poster suggested they should be two data types, which I half
>> agree with. There are advantages of being able to use IPv4 or IPv6
>> addresses in the same column, so I wouldn't have to have two tables
>> for host <-> address mappings, for instance. I'm undecided on which
>> is better, but so far I've used the inet with ipv4 and 6 data type
>> once and found them useful under one data type.

> Perhaps we can make "inet" take both and then define domains "inet4" and
> "inet6" over it that only take one kind.

I had originally felt strongly that there should be only one datatype
... but IIRC the thread Peter referred to convinced me that they should
indeed be two types, or at least that there's a darn good argument for
that viewpoint. Michael, have you reviewed the archives? I'd be
interested to hear your take on that discussion.

Single basic datatype plus two domains seems like a reasonable approach
if we feel that both viewpoints have merit. But I wonder whether they
both do ...

regards, tom lane