Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Also Heikki points out here that it would be nice to allow for the case for a >> 0-byte header. > > I don't think there's enough code space for that; at least not compared > to its use case.
Well it's irrelevant if we add a special data type to handle CHAR(1). But if we don't it's pretty important. Even with 1-byte varlena headers you can have approaching 100% bloat if you have a table with lots of CHAR(1) fields. That said I'm not sure whether it's worth it over having a special CHAR(1) data type which would have the benefit of handling other 1-byte encodings aside from ascii. We would probably still need a CHAR(2) data type too where the overhead is still 50%. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
