| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Fixed length data types issue |
| Date: | 2006-09-11 14:55:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20060911145514.GD10843@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 03:13:36PM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> >> Also Heikki points out here that it would be nice to allow for the case for a
> >> 0-byte header.
> >
> > I don't think there's enough code space for that; at least not compared
> > to its use case.
>
> Well it's irrelevant if we add a special data type to handle CHAR(1).
We already have a CHAR(1), it's called "char" and it's exactly one
byte. This discussion should probably be about strings longer than that.
It's a pity arrays have so much overhead, otherwise you could work with
arrays of "char".
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2006-09-11 15:05:23 | Re: Proposal for GUID datatype |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-11 14:54:28 | Re: [PATCHES] Fix linking of OpenLDAP libraries |