Bruce Momjian wrote: > Gregory Stark wrote: > > > > 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. > > One very nifty trick would be to fix "char" to act as CHAR(), and map > CHAR(1) automatically to "char".
Sorry, probably a stupid idea considering multi-byte encodings. I suppose it could be an optimization for single-byte encodings, but that seems very limiting. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
