Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there any technical reason why we don't support unsigned ints or
> tinyint? Just a matter of no one feeling the itch?
The question is whether it's worth complicating the numeric-type
promotion hierarchy even more. A variant int type probably isn't wort
On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
You can already use "char" to store 1 byte values, though unless
there are
several of these in a row, you won't save any space because of
alignment.
There's also boolean...
Is there any technical reason why we don't support unsigned ints or
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 2818
Logged by: Brien R. Givens
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.2
Operating system: Win XP
Description:ADO Field.Attributes reports NULL on NOT NULL fields
Details:
In ADO, the nullabili
Postgres version: 8.0.6
Operating system: Ubuntu GNU/Linux
I executed the following query while trying to build some date-conversion
functions for data that was represented as milliseconds since the Unix epoch:
davidl=# SELECT to_char(timestamp '1970-01-01 00:00:00 GMT','J MS');
to_ch
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
