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 <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
