Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_class catalog question...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
Cc: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_class catalog question...
Date: 2006-03-31 16:29:15
Message-ID: 8997.1143822555@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> About the only reason I use CHAR in other databases systems is when I
> know that the field will always contain the same amount of data, ie:
> storing a SHA1. In these cases it's silly to have a 4 byte overhead to
> store length. I really wish CHAR in PostgreSQL worked this way, so it
> would be a welcome addition to have a type that did work this way. In
> fact, I'd argue that CHAR should be made to work that way, and what's
> currently called CHAR should be renamed for those who wish to use it.

This argument falls flat when you consider that the width of a CHAR
entry is measured in characters, not bytes, and therefore its physical
size is not fixed even if its logical width is.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2006-03-31 16:46:39
Subject: Re: WAL dirty-buffer management bug
Previous:From: D'Arcy J.M. CainDate: 2006-03-31 16:18:27
Subject: Re: Slony-I for circular replication

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group