I doubt it, same way '0' and '1' have not disappeared despite 0 and 1 have. There is still a function that can convert a string to a boolean. There is no function to convert an integer to a boolean, which is why 0 and 1 do not work but '0', 'f', '1', 't' all work.
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry@greatgulfhomes.com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
This makes me wonder, what about 't' and 'f'?... will they disappear in newer versions of postgreSQL?
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 09:21, Jochem van Dieten wrote: Jean-Christian Imbeault wrote:
> Just having a small argument with an application developer ...
>
> is using 0/1 for boolean types SQL compliant? I am trying to convince
> him that the proper SQL compliant (and postgresql compliant) syntax is
> true/false but he won't budge ...
>
> The app as currently written no longer works with postgres because they
> code uses 0/1 instead of the now enforced true/false for boolean types.
>
> Can someone point me to an SQL spec and section where this is clearly
> stated out?
Would this be what you are looking for:
ISO/IEC 9075-2:1999 (E) ©ISO/IEC
5.3 <literal>
(..)
<boolean literal> ::= TRUE | FALSE | UNKNOWN
Additionally about UNKNOWN:
ISO/IEC 9075-2:1999 (E) ©ISO/IEC
4.6 Boolean types
The data type boolean comprises the distinct truth values true
and false . Unless prohibited by a NOT NULL constraint, the
boolean data type also supports the unknown truth value as the
null value. This specification does not make a distinction
between the null value of the boolean data type and the unknown
truth value that is the result of an SQL <predicate>, <search
condition>, or <boolean value expression>; they may be used
interchangeably to mean exactly the same thing.
HTH,
Jochem
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html