Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> I like this scheme a lot - maximum bang for buck.
>>
>
>
>> Is there any chance we can do it transparently, without exposing new
>> types? It is in effect an implementation detail ISTM, and ideally the
>> user would not need to have any knowledge of it.
>>
>
> Well, they'd have to be separate types, but the parser handling of them
> would be reasonably transparent I think. It would work pretty much
> exactly like the way that CHAR(N) maps to "bpchar" now --- is that
> sufficiently well hidden for your taste?
>
>
>
Yeah, probably. At least to the stage where it's not worth a herculean
effort to overcome.
cheers
andrew
