single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Caleb Cushing
Subject single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5
Date
Msg-id 81bfc67a0907010927j5d300053p4d5ae16528644fff@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5  (Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Kevin
Grittner<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> I think you mean byte where you've said bit.

you're correct. I'm being a nerf.

>  Boolean would be
> adequate for a single bit, and I haven't (so far) seen any database
> which supports both a single-bit type and a boolean.

wasn't aware of that. I'm admittedly most familiar with sqlite,
postgres, and mysql

>  Many databases
> support a TINYINT type as a single-byte value, although I'm not sure
> there's consistency on whether that's a signed or unsigned value.

wouldn't any implementation in pg support both?

--
Caleb Cushing

http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Mention CITEXT in the FAQ
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Mention CITEXT in the FAQ