Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The user would have to decide that he'll never need a value over 127 bytes >> long ever in order to get the benefit. > > Weren't you the one that's been going on at great length about how > wastefully we store CHAR(1) ? Sure, this has a somewhat restricted > use case, but it's about as efficient as we could possibly get within > that use case.
Sure, but are you saying you would have this in addition to do variable sized varlena headers? -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
