Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun sep 05 15:21:46 -0300 2011: > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Discussed the idea a bit on IM with Bruce, but couldn't find any really > > good alternative. Idea floated so far: > > > > * byte (seems pretty decent to me) > > * octet (though maybe people would expect it'd output as a number) > > * char1 (looks ugly, but then we have int4 and so on) > > * achar (this one is just plain weird) > > > > None seems great. Thoughts? > > Any new ideas on how to document our "char" data type? I think part of the problem is that this only seems to bother patch developers, and only until they become aware of the issue. After that, it just becomes a known gotcha that's easy to work around. Thus, there's not much interest in spending a lot of time fixing it. -- 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
