> 
> The char2,4,8,16 types seem to have no value-added over the
> better-supported char(), varchar(), text types; I am considering
> removing them from the backend, and instead have the parser
> transparently translate the types into varchar() (or char() - I'm not
> certain which is a better match for the types) for v6.4. Applications
> would not have to be changed.
> 
> Comments?

Wouldn't bother me.  I've got this mega-patch sitting here that would
remove them and put them into a loadable module under contrib.  Just
have to tidy up the section that creates the index ops.

Will there be a warning about using a "depreciated type" in 6.4 or are
we going to have this gunking up the grammer forever? :)

darrenk

Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:03:05 -0500
darrenk@insightdist.com (Darren King)
Re: [HACKERS] varchar() vs char16 performance
> Will there be a warning about using a "depreciated type" in 6.4 or are
> we going to have this gunking up the grammer forever? :)

Good idea. Then we can pull it out of the grammar sometime later. Now,
if these types are in a loadable module, then we can't actually do
anything in the parser anyway, since the loadable module would never
work. Are these character types worth keeping at all? Less support and
no performance benefit leaves me thinking not...

                        - Tom

Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:15:39 +0000
"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] varchar() vs char16 performance