I was right in last message: I just checked that in Access docs. A
little surprise from MS: 16-bit int, and 32 bit long.
P.S. That means there's nothing wrong with ADO.
Sincerely,
r.
-----Original Message-----
From: pgadmin-support-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgadmin-support-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Reshat Sabiq
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 5:41 AM
To: 'Dave Page'; pgadmin-support@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgadmin-support] int types migrated one level lower
Actually, I though about it a little, and I am now in doubt about how MS
Access stores integer types internally.
Since there is no "short" type, the consecutive values could potentially
go as follows:
byte - 8 bits
integer - 16 bits
long integer - 32 bits
If that is the case, then integer from Access maps to int2, and long one
maps to int4. That would be a very bad mapping on behalf of MS.
I'd appreciate any feedback on this issue. I'm currently planning to
change my Access ints into long ints, and long ints apparently will have
to stay put.
Sincerely,
r.
-----Original Message-----
From: pgadmin-support-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgadmin-support-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Reshat Sabiq
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 9:12 AM
To: 'Dave Page'; pgadmin-support@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgadmin-support] int types migrated one level lower
I'd guess ODBC would be more reliable for Windows-based DBs, since ADO
apparently converts int8 into int4 and int4 into int2 (I don't think MS
Access considers long integer to be int4, and integer to be int2).
Thanks,
r.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
