Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is this an 8.2 thing? You are joking, no?
> If not, is Numeric508 applied? No, that got rejected as being too much of a restriction of the dynamic range, eg John's comment here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2005-12/msg00246.php I think a more practical way of shaving 2 bytes from NUMERIC would be to invent a fixed-2-byte-header variant of varlena. That's something we talked about in the NUMERIC thread but ultimately dropped --- it'd be worth reconsidering along with the current ideas about multiple varlena header formats, however. The reason to not just make it use the generalized varlena format under discussion is that it'd really like to have at least 2-byte alignment; that would be enough to avoid memcpy-for-alignment. Another interesting subset of the problem is the inet/cidr datatypes, which I think would be perfectly happy with the 1-byte-header variants we've talked about --- AFAIR the inet code doesn't really have any alignment requirements on its data, and it certainly doesn't need values longer than 63 bytes. So that subset of the concept might need to be broken out as a separately usable thing too. 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
