Re: 0/1 vs true/false
От | Franco Bruno Borghesi |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 0/1 vs true/false |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1058970079.30663.7.camel@taz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 0/1 vs true/false (Jochem van Dieten <jochemd@oli.tudelft.nl>) |
Ответы |
Re: 0/1 vs true/false
Re: 0/1 vs true/false Re: 0/1 vs true/false |
Список | pgsql-general |
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:
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
Вложения
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: