Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> Fixing it would be trivial, I'm sure, but is it really a problem?
> The "char" data type which I was mistakenly using is enough of a wart that it
> probably doesn't matter what we do with it. There aren't any security holes
> with the current behaviour (I don't think).
The "char" type seems to be partly intended to serve as a poor man's
int1 --- at one time it even had arithmetic operators, if memory serves.
So we shouldn't disallow zero or mess with the fact that it's a signed
rather than unsigned byte.
regards, tom lane