From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fixed length data types issue |
Date: | 2006-09-12 10:10:02 |
Message-ID: | 871wqhv1j9.fsf@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> 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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2006-09-12 10:43:18 | Re: -HEAD planner issue wrt hash_joins on dbt3 ? |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2006-09-12 09:53:51 | Re: Optimizer improvements: to do or not to do? |