Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally I would settle for a fuller set of small fixed size datatypes. The
> "char" datatype is pretty much exactly what's needed except that it provides
> such a quirky interface.
I'm not actually against inventing an int1/tinyint type. I used to be
worried that it would screw up the numeric datatype promotion hierarchy
even more than it already was screwed up :-( ... but I think we have
dealt with most of those issues now. It'd be worth trying anyway ---
much more so than trying to optimize char(1), IMHO.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
