> We used to have some attempts at optimizing on the assumption that
> char(n) fields were physically fixed-width, but we gave it up as a
> bad job several major releases back ... it was never more than a
> very marginal optimization anyway ...
Does that mean that PostGreSQL fixes character width at thirty-two bits,
or that it uses UTF-8, or that it just stores what it gets?
(Checked chapter 8.3 in the manual, didn't see the answer there. Not
that I really want to know. With Unicode, trying to optimize record
sizes for char/text fields is a little like trying to play Russian
Roulette. Wait, is that no longer politically correct? Should it be
called six-chamber roulette, now? Don't want to offend anyone.)
--
Joel Matthew <rees@ddcom.co.jp>
