I said:
> "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> One alternate possible approach would maybe be to change the on-disk
>> representation to really be binary compatible and change the input
>> output and operator functions ?
> Seems like a great idea to me.
On further thought I
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One alternate possible approach would maybe be to change the on-disk
> representation to really be binary compatible and change the input
> output and operator functions ?
Hmm ... now that's an interesting thought. So the input converter
> I've gotten really tired of explaining to newbies why stuff involving
> char(n) fields doesn't work like they expect. Our current behavior is
> not valid per SQL92 anyway, I believe.
>
> I think there is a pretty simple solution now that we have pg_cast:
> we could stop treating char(n) as bin
I've gotten really tired of explaining to newbies why stuff involving
char(n) fields doesn't work like they expect. Our current behavior is
not valid per SQL92 anyway, I believe.
I think there is a pretty simple solution now that we have pg_cast:
we could stop treating char(n) as binary-equivalen
