Gregory Stark wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Well it's irrelevant if we add a special data type to handle CHAR(1).
> > 
> > In that case you should probably be using "char" ...
> 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?  I thought you would just store a byte there, retrieve
it and compare to something else.  Anything beyond this doesn't probably
make much sense (to me anyway).  Are you thinking in concatenating it, etc?

Alvaro Herrera                      
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to