From: | elein <elein(at)varlena(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | elein <elein(at)varlena(dot)com>, CSN <cool_screen_name90001(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: int1? types? |
Date: | 2003-10-11 01:23:07 |
Message-ID: | 20031010182307.E6483@cookie.varlena.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
The "char" type has special handling built into the server
if I recall correctly and that is part of the reason it
does not behave correctly in some cases. But I think it is
still schlepped around as a DATUM which is a four byte value.
What I meant was a user defined single byte data type.
I don't think it can be done since it needs to be packaged
as a DATUM.
elein
On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 06:07:00PM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
> elein wrote:
> >I don't think that you can create a genuine one byte datatype.
> >The resulting type would probably be four bytes long, even if
> >you create a one byte by-value data type. The one byte would
> >be packaged in a 4 byte container for passing around the server.
> >
> >Can anyone confirm or deny this?
>
> See my other post. The type exists and is called "char". See the bottom
> of this page:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/view.php?version=7.3&idoc=0&file=datatype-character.html
>
> Joe
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2003-10-11 01:28:08 | Re: int1? types? |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-10-11 01:07:00 | Re: int1? types? |