Re: Fixed length data types issue

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: Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?