| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, CSN <cool_screen_name90001(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: int1? |
| Date: | 2003-10-14 00:38:27 |
| Message-ID: | 4093.1066091907@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> writes:
>> If we were going to do that I think we'd be better off making a new
>> type and leaving "char" alone.
> You won't hear any disagreements from me on this one. I've
> sufficiently abused "char" as a 1 byte storage field and would love to
> see an int1 or tinyint datatype added to cover this situation. -sc
That's been discussed before. I think it was shelved until we figure
out a reasonably clean solution to the existing mess with assigning the
most useful datatypes to integer constants (the "you need to cast" set
of problems). Throwing an additional integer type into the stew right
now would just make things worse :-(
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-14 00:41:54 | Re: Locale bug? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-14 00:11:55 | Re: go for a script! / ex: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL |