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.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to