Re: converting microsoft sql server 2000 sql-code for postgresql - Mailing list pgsql-sql

From Wei Weng
Subject Re: converting microsoft sql server 2000 sql-code for postgresql
Date
Msg-id 003e01c2c750$74087e60$2f437242@PASCAL
Whole thread Raw
In response to converting microsoft sql server 2000 sql-code for postgresql 7.2.1  ("william windels" <william.windels@pandora.be>)
Responses Re: converting microsoft sql server 2000 sql-code for postgresql
List pgsql-sql
What about a UNIQUEIDENTIFIER type?

Is the only way casting it to a CHAR(38)? (Create a domain for it)

And does the performance suffer if I do the Domain/create my own data type
tricks?

Thanks!


Wei


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Guy Fraser" <guy@incentre.net>
Cc: <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: [SQL] converting microsoft sql server 2000 sql-code for
postgresql


> Guy Fraser <guy@incentre.net> writes:
> > If you go through the documentation you can also find out how to CREATE
your
> > own data TYPE to allow more direct use of non-PostgreSQL data types.
Here is
> > an example that will allow input of any "datetime" data into PostgreSQL
:
>
> > CREATE TYPE datetime AS (datetime timestamptz);
>
> I think what you probably really want is
>
>   CREATE DOMAIN datetime AS timestamptz;
>
> or more SQL-spec-compliantly
>
>   CREATE DOMAIN datetime AS timestamp with time zone;
>
> which essentially makes datetime a direct alias for timestamptz.  The
> CREATE TYPE approach makes a rowtype containing one timestamptz column,
> which isn't really going to act the way you want --- for one thing,
> none of the predefined functions and operators for type timestamptz
> will accept it.  With the DOMAIN approach, they will.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
>



pgsql-sql by date:

Previous
From: "Ed L."
Date:
Subject: Re: Scheduling Events?
Next
From: DA Morgan
Date:
Subject: Re: double linked list