Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Removing CC to pg-docs so that Robert reads it.
>
> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of vie mar 11 08:13:20 -0300 2011:
> > Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
> > > relpersistence should be <type>"char"</type>, not <type>char</type>.
> > > Oddly enough, there is a difference.
> >
> > I am unsure on that one. We have many 'char' mentions in catalog.sgml,
> > and I don't see any of them shown as '"char"'. (Wow, we should have
> > just called this type char1, but I think that name came from Berkeley!)
> > The big problem is that the pg_type name is really "char" _without_
> > quotes.
>
> One idea is to rename the type to something else. We could keep "char"
> as an alias for backwards compatibility, but use the new name in system
> catalogs, and document it as the main name of the type.
>
> 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?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
