Gregory Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> The thing is, 100% extra space is cheap, but the processing power for
>> making the need for that extra space go away is not.
> That's simply untrue for most applications.
Well, it's true for some and not true for others: we hear from plenty of
people who seem to be more CPU-bound than IO-bound, and the former group
would not like a change along this line. The trick with any space-saving
change would be to not expend so many cycles as to make things a lot
worse for the CPU-bound crowd.
regards, tom lane
