Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie mar 11 13:01:06 -0300 2011: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: > > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie mar 11 12:40:50 -0300 2011: > >> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: > >>> One idea is to rename the type to something else. We could keep "char" > >>> as an alias for backwards compatibility, but use the new name in system > >>> catalogs, and document it as the main name of the type. > > >> We don't have type aliases... > > > I meant the conversion we do from a certain name (say because it's the > > SQL-mandated name for the type) to the internal name, such as mapping > > integer to int4. > > That works for keywords. "char" is, by definition, not a keyword.
Oh. Right, of course. Seems the only option is to continue living with it. (Well actually the other option would be to rename it and break backwards compatibility. I'm not sure anyone is going to be happy with that though.) -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
