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.
regards, tom lane
