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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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