single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Caleb Cushing
Тема single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5
Дата
Msg-id 81bfc67a0907010927j5d300053p4d5ae16528644fff@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5  (Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Kevin
Grittner<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> I think you mean byte where you've said bit.

you're correct. I'm being a nerf.

>  Boolean would be
> adequate for a single bit, and I haven't (so far) seen any database
> which supports both a single-bit type and a boolean.

wasn't aware of that. I'm admittedly most familiar with sqlite,
postgres, and mysql

>  Many databases
> support a TINYINT type as a single-byte value, although I'm not sure
> there's consistency on whether that's a signed or unsigned value.

wouldn't any implementation in pg support both?

--
Caleb Cushing

http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Joshua D. Drake"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Mention CITEXT in the FAQ
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Mention CITEXT in the FAQ