Gregory Stark wrote:
>
> 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.
What semantics? I thought you would just store a byte there, retrieve
it and compare to something else. Anything beyond this doesn't probably
make much sense (to me anyway). Are you thinking in concatenating it, etc?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.