Gregory Stark wrote: > > 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.
What semantics? I thought you would just store a byte there, retrieve it and compare to something else. Anything beyond this doesn't probably make much sense (to me anyway). Are you thinking in concatenating it, etc? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
