Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> Tom said he didn't think there was enough code space and my own
>> experimentation was slowly leading me to agree, sadly.
>
> There isn't if you want the type to also handle long strings.
> But what if we restrict it to short strings? See my message
> just now.
Then it seems like it imposes a pretty hefty burden on the user.
text columns, for example, can never take advantage of it. And there are
plenty of instances where 127 bytes would be just short enough to be annoying
even though 99% of the data would in fact be shorter. Things like "address"
and "product name" for example.
The user would have to decide that he'll never need a value over 127 bytes
long ever in order to get the benefit.
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
