From: | Chris Travers <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jean-Christian Imbeault <jc(at)mega-bucks(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 0/1 vs true/false |
Date: | 2003-07-23 07:22:25 |
Message-ID: | 3F1E37B1.8060608@travelamericas.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
I ran into this problem some time ago. I ended up using a query with a
CASE statement in it to caste the boolean as a 1 or 0. I guess one could
do this as a view as well.
Jean-Christian Imbeault wrote:
> Just having a small argument with an application developer ...
>
> is using 0/1 for boolean types SQL compliant? I am trying to convince
> him that the proper SQL compliant (and postgresql compliant) syntax is
> true/false but he won't budge ...
>
> The app as currently written no longer works with postgres because
> they code uses 0/1 instead of the now enforced true/false for boolean
> types.
>
> Can someone point me to an SQL spec and section where this is clearly
> stated out?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jean-Christian Imbeault
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jean-Christian Imbeault | 2003-07-23 07:24:26 | Re: 0/1 vs true/false |
Previous Message | nolan | 2003-07-23 07:08:25 | Re: birthday calculation |