On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 09:11:54AM -0400, Peter T Mount wrote:
> Erm, int8 isn't long, but an array of 8 int's (unless it's changed).
http://postgresql.readysetnet.com/users-lounge/docs/7.0/user/datatype.htm#AEN942
It is very much an 8-byte integer, the correlary to Java's Long/long.
--
Kyle.
Peter T Mount <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Ah, it just dawned on me what might be happening: Peter, I'm guessing
>> that you are thinking of "INT48" or some such, the pseudo-integer array
>> type. Kyle is referring to the "int8" 8 byte integer type.
> Ah, that would explain it. However int8 (as
> Erm, int8 isn't long, but an array of 8 int's (unless it's changed).
int8 is a 64-bit integer. There used to be a type (maybe called int48
??) which was 8 4-byte integers. afaicr that is now called oidvector
(and there is an int2vector also). The name changes for these latter
types were fairly
> > >This is a new feature? Using indecies is "new"? I guess I really beg to
> > >differ. Seems like a bugfix to me (in the "workaround" category).
> > Yes they are. INT8 is not a feature/type yet supported by the driver, hence
> > it's "new".
> > Infact the jdbc driver supports no array's at t
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:24:24PM +0100, Peter Mount wrote:
> At 18:30 09/04/01 -0700, Kyle VanderBeek wrote:
> >This is a new feature? Using indecies is "new"? I guess I really beg to
> >differ. Seems like a bugfix to me (in the "workaround" category).
>
> Yes they are. INT8 is not a feature
Sorry, meant to hit all of these.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:24:24PM +0100, Peter Mount wrote:
> >I'm going to start digging around in the optimizer code so such hacks as
> >mine aren't needed. It's really haenous to find out your production
> >server is freaking out and doing sequential scans f
