From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane) |
Cc: | lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu, pgsql-sql(at)hub(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [SQL] char type seems the same as char(1) |
Date: | 1998-12-13 19:31:37 |
Message-ID: | 199812131931.OAA01559@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
> Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Should I add this to the TODO list, that char is not char1 but has
> > 4-byte length?
>
> Well, Tom Lockhart responded that "it's not a bug, it's a feature".
> I still think it's broken --- and certainly the fact that quoting
> affects the result (char and "char" act differently) is not good.
> But the discussion seems to have died out without producing any
> definite plan of action.
If we use char1 for internal tables, we should allow it externally, if
only as char1. I will add it to the TODO list.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-12-13 20:35:15 | Re: [SQL] char type seems the same as char(1) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1998-12-13 17:14:10 | Re: [SQL] char type seems the same as char(1) |