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

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


Reply via email to