| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Herbie McDuck <herbie(at)faams(dot)net>, pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Boolean variables... |
| Date: | 2003-08-30 21:36:46 |
| Message-ID: | 864.1062279406@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Koh | 2003-08-30 23:40:30 | Can Postgresql run in MS Windows |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-08-30 16:46:15 | Re: Boolean variables... |