Re: Anyone care about type "filename" ?

On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Tom Lane wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> > okay, reword ... what would have been the difference between that and
> > char(256)? :) I'm just curious as to whether it had any checks that would
> > have validated it as being a filename or something like that, that's all
>
> Actually, the input converter did have some code to expand "~username"
> paths. But putting that in the input converter was broken by design;
> you don't want the home directory expanded in a path when it's stored
> into the database, you want to expand it when the path is used (what
> if the user's home dir has moved since you made the DB entry?)

Ah, okay, cool ... thanks :) Just seemed like a weird type to define if
you don't do anything different then char(256) would have done ...