| From: | Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| 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: | 2006-04-01 15:42:34 |
| Message-ID: | 442E9F6A.8070900@tada.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 11:29:15AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
>
> True, but in every case I've used char it was to store something that
> would never be multi-byte, like a GUID, or a SHA1. Though I guess in
> retrospect, what would really be handy is 'hex' datatype, that stores a
> hex string (possibly with a custom format, such as a GUID) in it's
> native binary format.
Why not simply a fixed number of bytes, i.e. byte(16) or octet(16)? Hexadecimal is just a
convenient human-readable representation.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2006-04-01 15:43:46 | Re: Remote PL/Java, Summary |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-04-01 15:34:57 | Re: Suggestion: Which Binary? |