Qingqing Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To reduce size of varlen2.vl_len to int16. This has been mentioned before,
> but is there any show-stopper reasoning preventing us from doing that or
> somebody has been working on it?
> Sorry, just to repeat myself. Char types will benefit from that.
I have considerably less than zero interest in creating variant char
types with an int16 header. The proposal that was on the table was
to use this for numeric and inet types, where it could be done without
introducing any user-visible semantics changes.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
