Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I like this scheme a lot - maximum bang for buck.

> Is there any chance we can do it transparently, without exposing new 
> types? It is in effect an implementation detail ISTM, and ideally the 
> user would not need to have any knowledge of it.

Well, they'd have to be separate types, but the parser handling of them
would be reasonably transparent I think.  It would work pretty much
exactly like the way that CHAR(N) maps to "bpchar" now --- is that
sufficiently well hidden for your taste?

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to