Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> Given that we now need order-of-thirty possible field types, do you feel
>> uncomfortable with a single-byte field identifier in the FE/BE protocol?
> There's a possible solution: SQL99 part 3 defines numerical codes for
> each of these fields (table 12/section 5.14). The codes are between
> around 0 and 40.
Hmm. I can't see any advantage to these over assigning our own codes;
ours would have at least *some* mnemonic value, rather than being chosen
completely at random ...
regards, tom lane
