Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Well it's irrelevant if we add a special data type to handle CHAR(1). > > In that case you should probably be using "char" ...
Well "char" doesn't have quite the same semantics as CHAR(1). If that's the consensus though then I can work on either fixing "char" semantics to match CHAR(1) or adding a separate type instead. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
