On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 03:13:36PM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>
> >> Also Heikki points out here that it would be nice to allow for the case for a
> >> 0-byte header.
> >
> > I don't think there's enough code space for that; at least not compared
> > to its use case.
>
> Well it's irrelevant if we add a special data type to handle CHAR(1).
We already have a CHAR(1), it's called "char" and it's exactly one
byte. This discussion should probably be about strings longer than that.
It's a pity arrays have so much overhead, otherwise you could work with
arrays of "char".
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
