Re: [HACKERS] varchar() vs char16 performance - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From darrenk@insightdist.com (Darren King)
Subject Re: [HACKERS] varchar() vs char16 performance
Date
Msg-id 9803111503.AA53154@ceodev
Whole thread Raw
List pgsql-hackers
>
> The char2,4,8,16 types seem to have no value-added over the
> better-supported char(), varchar(), text types; I am considering
> removing them from the backend, and instead have the parser
> transparently translate the types into varchar() (or char() - I'm not
> certain which is a better match for the types) for v6.4. Applications
> would not have to be changed.
>
> Comments?

Wouldn't bother me.  I've got this mega-patch sitting here that would
remove them and put them into a loadable module under contrib.  Just
have to tidy up the section that creates the index ops.

Will there be a warning about using a "depreciated type" in 6.4 or are
we going to have this gunking up the grammer forever? :)

darrenk

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Zeugswetter Andreas
Date:
Subject: AW: [HACKERS] varchar() vs char16 performance
Next
From: Zeugswetter Andreas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] indexing words slow