Re: extensible enum types

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