Re: Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)

Peter T Mount <peter@retep.org.uk> writes:
>> Ah, it just dawned on me what might be happening: Peter, I'm guessing
>> that you are thinking of "INT48" or some such, the pseudo-integer array
>> type. Kyle is referring to the "int8" 8 byte integer type.

> Ah, that would explain it. However int8 (as in 8 byte int) has not been
> implemented AFAIK (which is why I've said it's "new"). Until now, I've taken
> int8 to be the one that used to be used (probably still is) in system tables
> etc.

Say what?  "int8" has been a 64-bit-integer type since release 6.4.
I think it existed in contrib even before that, but certainly that is
what "int8" has meant for the last three or so years.

            regards, tom lane