On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 03:13:36PM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Also Heikki points out here that it would be nice to allow for the case 
> >> for a
> >> 0-byte header.
> >
> > I don't think there's enough code space for that; at least not compared
> > to its use case.
> Well it's irrelevant if we add a special data type to handle CHAR(1).

We already have a CHAR(1), it's called "char" and it's exactly one
byte. This discussion should probably be about strings longer than that.

It's a pity arrays have so much overhead, otherwise you could work with
arrays of "char".

Have a nice day,
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog@svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to 
> litigate.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to