| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone care about type "filename" ? |
| Date: | 2000-08-01 02:09:23 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0007312308230.570-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I'm thinking of removing the datatype "filename", which is a fixed-size
> > array of 256 characters with no support functions other than input and
> > output converters. Apparently it was once used in the system tables,
> > but it is so no longer AFAICT. Since it's fixed-length, it cannot be
> > made TOASTable, which makes it substantially inferior to type "text"
> > for any purpose that I can think of.
> >
> > Anyone using this type?
>
> I vote for removal.
works for me too ...
curious though, but why would such a type even be used in the system
tables? what difference does it have to a varchar(256)?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Warner | 2000-08-01 03:06:51 | Re: pg_dump & performance degradation |
| Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2000-08-01 01:54:23 | Re: pg_dump + function/table hierarchy |