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?
http://archives.postgresql.org
