Tom Lane writes:
> Given that we now need order-of-thirty possible field types, do you feel
> uncomfortable with a single-byte field identifier in the FE/BE protocol?
> I'm still leaning that way on the grounds of compactness and programming
> simplicity, but I can see where someone might want to argue it won't do
> in the long run.
There's a possible solution: SQL99 part 3 defines numerical codes for
each of these fields (table 12/section 5.14). The codes are between
around 0 and 40. (Don't be confused by the negative code numbers in the
table; those are only for use within ODBC.)
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net