Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> 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 EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com