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

single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5

From: Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5
Date: 2009-07-01 16:27:46
Message-ID: 81bfc67a0907010927j5d300053p4d5ae16528644fff@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Kevin
Grittner<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2009-07-01 16:33:15
Subject: Re: Mention CITEXT in the FAQ
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-07-01 16:27:41
Subject: Re: Mention CITEXT in the FAQ

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