Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: int8 becames string in BDE :-(

From: SZUCS Gábor <surrano(at)mailbox(dot)hu>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: int8 becames string in BDE :-(
Date: 2002-06-05 08:12:58
Message-ID: 001901c20c68$ce1b8f80$0a03a8c0@fejleszt2 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-odbc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "SZUCS Gábor" <surrano(at)mailbox(dot)hu>
Cc: <pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>; "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 9:48 AM
Subject: RE: [ODBC] int8 becames string in BDE :-(

<<<
Ahh, I see. In that case I would not be opposed to such a change. However,
as Hiroshi points out in his reply, mapping int8 -> int4 may cause problems
when you do get numbers bigger than 2,147,483,647 but of course, that may
not apply to your situation.
>>>


Since our largest tables are ~100k rows and those candidate for joins are
even lesser, it's an acceptable restriction unless we join 3 tables without
where's. This is concerning count(). Other int8 results such as nextval and
currval are also out of suspicions: it is unlikely to have more than 2^31
lines in any table concerning human lifetime.

Thanks for Hiroshi for the positive response, we can't wait for the new
version ;)

G.
--
There are 10 kinds of people:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2002-06-05 09:54:32
Subject: Re: int8 becames string in BDE :-(
Previous:From: Dave PageDate: 2002-06-05 07:48:46
Subject: Re: int8 becames string in BDE :-(

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group