Hi,

it seems to me that it's not quite clear whether pgsql makes
a consistent difference between byte and char, and if so, if 
there is any way to store a small-sized array of bytes without
going right to a BLOB. If you interface pgsql with Java/JDBC 
the support of UNICODE (16 bit per char) is quite essential to
avoid surprises.

A related question is whether we could support some more 
standard names for data types (e.g., BIGINT, SMALLINT, etc.)
But I'm not sure there is really any standard. I would be
willing to work a little on these data types but I'd need
someone to hint me on who else is doing stuff and, if possible,
where to look first (and what known mistakes to avoid.)

regards
-Gunther


-- 
Gunther_Schadow-------------------------------http://aurora.rg.iupui.edu
Regenstrief Institute for Health Care
1050 Wishard Blvd., Indianapolis IN 46202, Phone: (317) 630 7960
schadow@aurora.rg.iupui.edu------------------#include <usual/disclaimer>
Sat, 11 Dec 1999 12:33:10 -0500
Gunther Schadow <gunther@aurora.rg.iupui.edu>
UNICODE characters vs. BINARY
> A related question is whether we could support some more
> standard names for data types (e.g., BIGINT, SMALLINT, etc.)
> But I'm not sure there is really any standard. I would be
> willing to work a little on these data types but I'd need
> someone to hint me on who else is doing stuff and, if possible,
> where to look first (and what known mistakes to avoid.)

postgres=> create table x (i smallint);
CREATE
postgres=> create table y (j bigint);
ERROR:  Unable to locate type name 'bigint' in catalog

afaik we support the type names defined in SQL92 (like smallint),
historical names in Postgres, and some extensions. What more do we
need?

                  - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart				lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California

Tue, 14 Dec 1999 07:35:43 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] UNICODE characters vs. BINARY
Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> postgres=> create table x (i smallint);
> CREATE
> postgres=> create table y (j bigint);
> ERROR:  Unable to locate type name 'bigint' in catalog

so BIGINT (as a synonym for INT8 is not supported). Is 
BIGINT not a standard SQL92 or de Facto?

BTW: I have tried to make BIGINT a synonym of INT8 using
CREATE TYPE with the parameters I've got from pg_type
but it would not work.

> afaik we support the type names defined in SQL92 (like smallint),
> historical names in Postgres, and some extensions. What more do we
> need?

I'm not entirely sure which types in pg_type are historical
but unsupported and which do work.  For example: what is 
"bytea" ... I remember darkly that this was an array of bytes
in original Postgres? But I may be mistaken. Why do I ask?
Because I see the need to store small byte sequences w/o 
having to deploy the large object inversion.  For example
if I want to store 128 bit UUIDs (or something similar with
128 bits) I need this as a straight byte sequence, indexable
of course -- not as a CHAR (since no character conversion should
occur and these bytes are not printable), not as a BLOB.

Then, how much do we guarrantee about PostgreSQL internal OIDs?
What if I want to use OIDs directly in the context of a multiple
data bases. Is there any way to control assignment of OIDs so
that cooperation with other databases would be possible?  

thanks,
-Gunther


My original question was: 
> > A related question is whether we could support some more
> > standard names for data types (e.g., BIGINT, SMALLINT, etc.)
> > But I'm not sure there is really any standard. I would be
> > willing to work a little on these data types but I'd need
> > someone to hint me on who else is doing stuff and, if possible,
> > where to look first (and what known mistakes to avoid.)


-- 
Gunther_Schadow-------------------------------http://aurora.rg.iupui.edu
Regenstrief Institute for Health Care
1050 Wishard Blvd., Indianapolis IN 46202, Phone: (317) 630 7960
schadow@aurora.rg.iupui.edu------------------#include <usual/disclaimer>
Tue, 14 Dec 1999 13:34:10 -0500
Gunther Schadow <gunther@aurora.rg.iupui.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] UNICODE characters vs. BINARY
At 01:34 PM 12/14/99 -0500, Gunther Schadow wrote:
>so BIGINT (as a synonym for INT8 is not supported). Is 
>BIGINT not a standard SQL92 or de Facto?

I've got Date's book sitting here, and it says that integer
and smallint are standard, with int being a standard
abbreviation for integer.  So apparently bigint is
a common additional type, not standard SQL92.



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
  Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
  http://donb.photo.net.

Tue, 14 Dec 1999 10:54:37 -0800
Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
Re: [HACKERS] UNICODE characters vs. BINARY
On 1999-12-14, Thomas Lockhart mentioned:

> afaik we support the type names defined in SQL92 (like smallint),
> historical names in Postgres, and some extensions. What more do we
> need?

We need to move the standard names up in the docs and the historical ones
down. I guess what you're doing with the date/time types would also be a
good idea.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vï¿½g 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden



Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:01:52 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: [HACKERS] UNICODE characters vs. BINARY