Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Well it's irrelevant if we add a special data type to handle CHAR(1).
>
> In that case you should probably be using "char" ...
Well "char" doesn't have quite the same semantics as CHAR(1). If that's the
consensus though then I can work on either fixing "char" semantics to match
CHAR(1) or adding a separate type instead.
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
