Tom Lane wrote:
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?


Yeah, probably. At least to the stage where it's not worth a herculean effort to overcome.



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


Reply via email to