| From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jean-Christian Imbeault <jc(at)mega-bucks(dot)co(dot)jp>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 0/1 vs true/false |
| Date: | 2003-07-23 16:40:47 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0307231039090.22524-100000@css120.ihs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> "scott.marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Well, there is no boolean type per se in SQL92. But there is in SQL99.
>
> > Was it pulled from SQL92 before it went standard? My copy of the
> > pre-release lists a boolean type, just like the 99 standard does.
>
> Where? SQL92 says nothing about a declarable boolean datatype that
> I can see. They're a bit schizophrenic in that they do define a lot
> of operators that are described as returning boolean ... but you cannot
> create a column of type boolean, nor is there a boolean-literal construct.
> AFAICS, boolean values can only exist "in flight" between operators and
> a WHERE or HAVING clause in SQL92.
Yep, you're right. I was looking at how they treated booles in search
conditions, and figured they had a type to match.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Reuben D. Budiardja | 2003-07-23 17:28:48 | Re: New Poll @ Codewalkers |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-23 16:32:49 | Re: 0/1 vs true/false |