Обсуждение: 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... > > IMHO, not worth keeping if the performance benefit is gone and the only > real benefit though was the few bytes of header space they saved per field. > If char2 et al are going completely from 6.4, I think it would be sensible for pg_dump to filter these types and change them to char(2) et al when it writes the CREATE statments. Best wishes, Andrew ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Andrew C.R. Martin University College London EMAIL: (Work) martin@biochem.ucl.ac.uk (Home) andrew@stagleys.demon.co.uk URL: http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/~martin Tel: (Work) +44(0)171 419 3890 (Home) +44(0)1372 275775
> If char2 et al are going completely from 6.4, I think it would be sensible > for pg_dump to filter these types and change them to char(2) et al when > it writes the CREATE statments. > That is an interesting idea, but what about applications that use them? I think we can have the parser change them for one release, then drop them completely. -- Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 + If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w) + Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)