Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
>> You are just bumping up the storage cost. Part of the attraction of enums is
>> their efficiency.
>>
>
> What's efficient about them? Aren't we using 4 bytes to store a value
> that will nearly always fit in 2, if not 1?
>
>
This was debated when we implemented enums. As between 1,2 and 4 there
is often not much to choose, as alignment padding makes it pretty much
the same. But any of them are more efficient than storing a numeric
value or the label itself.
Anyway, it might well be moot.
cheers
andrew
