On 30/12/2012 04:19, Darren Duncan wrote:
Yes, that is useful.
I think you should add a column such that your leftmost column is some
canonical type name you made for the report, and have the SQL standard
name(s) in a separate column like the ODBC standard names are.
This works best when no one list is a superset of the others, which is
surely the case, then you don't have say the confusion about which
things in the first column are SQL standard actual vs some placeholder
you added from ODBC/etc.
As far as I understand thus far, the ODBC and SQL standard names are the
same for all those types with codes >= 1. Although I agree having some
distinction between them other than the numbers would be useful. The
column marked ODBC is SQL Server, it's just using the ODBC driver, I'll
need to correct that in the next version to make it more clear.
I'm not sure what types names I could create in a new left column that
wouldn't match the current left column. I'm open to suggestions if you
want to send me some ideas.
Lyle
