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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to > litigate.
Description: Digital signature