Thread

  1. Re: [HACKERS] varchar() vs char16 performance

    Andrew Martin <martin@biochemistry.ucl.ac.uk> — 1998-03-12T11:08:59Z

    > > 
    > > > 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