I'd like to see this topic revisited since as far as I can see it
hasn't been seriously discussed in years. I believe the main arguments
against are why do we need more more numeric datatypes and increased
maintenance. It would seem to me that a tinyint datatype maintenance
wise would get all the same updates as the other int types, making it
only a slight increase in maintenance. I think there was 1 more reason
but I can't find the original thread now.
most (if not all?) of posgresql's major competitor's (mysql, sql
server, db2, etc) support a single bit integer datatype. it would
bring increased compatibility with existing mysql apps esp, making
them easier to port.
It (in theory?) should also bring a speed enhancement where usable
since it would take less disk space.
A couple of times I've been told "you don't need tinyint, use boolean"
which is not true, several projects I've worked on I've needed and
integer field that supports number within a small range 0-5 1-10 1-100
or something similar. I end up using smallint but it's range is huge
for the actual requirements.
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2009-07-01 15:38:23|
|Subject: Re: 8.5 development schedule|
|Previous:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2009-07-01 15:04:39|
|Subject: Re: Extensions User Design|