David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 10:07:29PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> What would be the point?
> Removing the legacy "char" type, per original post. :)
Removing it is the wrong solution.
The idea of renaming it to char1 might be an appropriate balance of pain
versus benefit. Or perhaps not; I'd want to see a proposed patch before
committing to doing anything here.
> We've made changes as big on aesthetic grounds before, and if the
> change results in an enum type optimized for space efficiency, that's
> all to the good.
That's a pipe dream. You can't use enums in catalogs that underlie the
enum implementation. Possibly you could kluge something so that there
are phony entries in pg_enum reflecting the hard-wired values that the C
code uses, but I entirely fail to see any point in such a thing.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
