Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Removing CC to pg-docs so that Robert reads it. > > Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of vie mar 11 08:13:20 -0300 2011: > > Kevin Grittner wrote: > > > > relpersistence should be <type>"char"</type>, not <type>char</type>. > > > Oddly enough, there is a difference. > > > > I am unsure on that one. We have many 'char' mentions in catalog.sgml, > > and I don't see any of them shown as '"char"'. (Wow, we should have > > just called this type char1, but I think that name came from Berkeley!) > > The big problem is that the pg_type name is really "char" _without_ > > quotes. > > One idea is to rename the type to something else. We could keep "char" > as an alias for backwards compatibility, but use the new name in system > catalogs, and document it as the main name of the type. > > Discussed the idea a bit on IM with Bruce, but couldn't find any really > good alternative. Idea floated so far: > > * byte (seems pretty decent to me) > * octet (though maybe people would expect it'd output as a number) > * char1 (looks ugly, but then we have int4 and so on) > * achar (this one is just plain weird) > > None seems great. Thoughts?
Any new ideas on how to document our "char" data type? -- Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
