Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 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.
No, there are lots of single-byte encoding databases. And one day we'll have per-column encoding anyways and there are lots of databases that have columns that want to be one-character ascii encoded fields. It's limited but I wouldn't say it's very limiting. In the cases where it doesn't apply there's no way out anyways. A UTF8 field will need a length header in some form. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
