I had explained in some issue why we're not allowed to do this, but I can't find it anymore. The only thing I could find was cbandy's comment at the end of #300.

Well, per https://go-review.googlesource.com/#/c/19439/ this isn't going anywhere.

Reopened as an alternative to #300 now that https://go-review.googlesource.com/#/c/19439/ is merged in golang/go@7162c4d.

@johto ping!

Excellent. We should not forget the other character types. As we make this transition (or maybe before?) we should probably tackle #404, so we can point to the docs if/when users notice this change.

Based on comments in the CL, it looks like the change to database/sql will be in Go1.7, yes? Is there any reason/desire for us to keep the current/pre-Go1.7 behavior available?

I'll take a look at #404 when I have more time, but I don't see any reason
for it to precede this (in fact, doing this first will reduce churn).

As for persevering the old behavior - I don't think there's any reason to
do so. It's easy enough to work around by scanning directly into a byte
array or casting (and it's just as much work as changing existing user code
to use a legacy API).
On May 21, 2016 12:40 AM, "Chris Bandy" notifications@github.com wrote:

Excellent. We should not forget the other character types
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/datatype-character.html.
As we make this transition (or maybe before?) we should probably tackle
#404 #404, so we can point to the docs
if/when users notice this change.

Based on comments in the CL, it looks like the change to database/sql
will be in Go1.7, yes? Is there any reason/desire for us to keep the
current/pre-Go1.7 behavior available?

—
You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#436 (comment)

@uhoh-itsmaciek could you take a look at this one? the upstream change was a documentation change, so while it will be included in 1.7, it should be safe to merge this even for use in versions prior to 1.7.

@tamird sure, but I won't have time for it till next week.

@tamird How about T_varchar & T_char ?

seems reasonable to add those. Done.

@uhoh-itsmaciek this is green and ready for another look, when you get a chance.

LGTM

Looks good. Thanks!