Re: Manipulating complex types as non-contiguous structures in-memory

On 2015-05-13 20:48:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I still think that going back to defining the second byte as the size
> would be better.  Fortunately, since this is only a matter of in-memory
> representations, we aren't committed to any particular answer.

Requiring sizes to be different still strikes me as a disaster. Or is
that not what you're proposing?