| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-03-31 16:46:39 | Re: WAL dirty-buffer management bug |
| Previous Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 2006-03-31 16:18:27 | Re: Slony-I for circular replication |