On Oct 4, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Markus Schaber wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> It's not only about documenting the pure existence of the aliases
>>> (which
>>> was already documented in the table on the datatype TOC page),
>>> it's also
>>> about telling the user which of the names are the ones to avoid,
>>> and the
>>> reasons to do so.
>>
>> *blink* Why do any need to be avoided? What you use is a matter of
>> taste, and your organisation's coding standards. From a purely
>> technical
>> POV I don't see any reason to avoid using either the canonical type
>> names or the various aliases.
>
> At least compatibility with the SQL standard, as well as with other
> Databases might be a reason.
It would be nice to denote types/aliases that are and aren't ANSI. A
number are marked in the docs, but it would be good to add the info
to that summary table.
--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
--
Jim Nasby jimn@enterprisedb.com
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
