Обсуждение: Boolean variables...

If I try to set a boolean to 'f' it works; if I set it to 't' it
actually sets it to false... You'd think if I'm not allowed to use a
string it would raise an error?

Eh. No matter. My problem is solved but it looks like a common gotcha.
So is there an FAQ on this?

cheers
C
Cath Lawrence,                       Cath.Lawrence@anu.edu.au
Senior Scientific Programmer,  Centre for Bioinformation Science,
John Curtin School of Medical Research (room 4088)
Australian National University,  Canberra ACT 0200
ph: (02) 61257959   mobile: 0421-902694   fax: (02) 61252595

Cath Lawrence <Cath.Lawrence@anu.edu.au> writes:
> If I try to set a boolean to 'f' it works; if I set it to 't' it
> actually sets it to false...

Not here:

regression=# create table t1 (f1 boolean);
CREATE TABLE
regression=# insert into t1 values('f');
INSERT 1201117 1
regression=# insert into t1 values('t');
INSERT 1201118 1
regression=# select * from t1;
 f1
----
 f
 t
(2 rows)


            regards, tom lane

On the BOOLEAN issue, it seems that a majority of the 'MAJOR', high dollar
DBs. do not support the boolean datatype.

Is PG supporting a depreciated feature or have the other DBs yet to catch
up?

--Herbie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Cath Lawrence" <Cath.Lawrence@anu.edu.au>
Cc: <pgsql-novice@postgresql.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: [NOVICE] Boolean variables...


> Cath Lawrence <Cath.Lawrence@anu.edu.au> writes:
> > If I try to set a boolean to 'f' it works; if I set it to 't' it
> > actually sets it to false...
>
> Not here:
>
> regression=# create table t1 (f1 boolean);
> CREATE TABLE
> regression=# insert into t1 values('f');
> INSERT 1201117 1
> regression=# insert into t1 values('t');
> INSERT 1201118 1
> regression=# select * from t1;
>  f1
> ----
>  f
>  t
> (2 rows)
>
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Herbie McDuck wrote:
> On the BOOLEAN issue, it seems that a majority of the 'MAJOR', high dollar
> DBs. do not support the boolean datatype.
>
> Is PG supporting a depreciated feature or have the other DBs yet to catch
> up?

We aren't sure.  :-)

Our boolean support isn't going to be removed, if that is your question.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Herbie McDuck wrote:
>> On the BOOLEAN issue, it seems that a majority of the 'MAJOR', high dollar
>> DBs. do not support the boolean datatype.
>>
>> Is PG supporting a depreciated feature or have the other DBs yet to catch
>> up?

> We aren't sure.  :-)

Sure we are.  SQL99 defines type boolean, SQL92 didn't.  AFAICT our
boolean type is exactly compatible with SQL99 (except that SQL99 offers
UNKNOWN as an alternate spelling of NULL::BOOLEAN, which we haven't
bothered to provide yet).

I wasn't actually planning to respond to such an obvious troll ...

            regards, tom lane