Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E5C477227 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:05:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F2B4476FF0 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:00:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id gA7K0phR028473; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:00:52 -0500 (EST) To: Stephan Szabo Cc: Ludwig Lim , PostgreSQL Mailing List Subject: Re: Weird NULL behavior In-reply-to: <20021107113216.S99207-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com> References: <20021107113216.S99207-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com> Comments: In-reply-to Stephan Szabo message dated "Thu, 07 Nov 2002 11:35:56 -0800" Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:00:51 -0500 Message-ID: <28472.1036699251@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200211/119 X-Sequence-Number: 10261 Stephan Szabo writes: > On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Tom Lane wrote: >> I am kind of inclined to remove the arithmetic operators on "char" >> (+,-,*,/) in 7.4 --- they don't seem to have any real-world uses, >> and as this example illustrates, they are perfectly positioned to >> capture cases that probably ought to be errors. > That seems to make sense. I assume that they were there so that someone > could treat it as a 1 byte integer? Presumably ... but defining a numeric type named "int1" would be a lot more sensible than overloading "char" for the purpose. regards, tom lane