Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Gregory Stark wrote: >> >> Well "char" doesn't have quite the same semantics as CHAR(1). If that's the >> consensus though then I can work on either fixing "char" semantics to match >> CHAR(1) or adding a separate type instead. > > What semantics?
The main bit that comes to mind is 32::CHAR(1) give you '3' but 32::"char" gives you ' '. Really it makes more sense if you think of "char" is a 1 byte integer type with some extra text casts and operators to make C programmers happy, not a 1 byte character type. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
