On Fri 20 Jul 2007, Justin Bronn wrote: > +1 to bigint support. > > I ran into this problem recently when implementing IP geolocation > models. I know I'm not the only one that has or will experience these > problems (remember when slashdot crashed after 16,777,216 comments?). > >From what I understand, the largest hurdle to having large integer > support is that different db backends have different sizes for > bigint. Are there any other issues holding this back?
AFAIK that is only an issue for PositiveBigIntegerField not for BigIntegerField. I am hoping my BigIntegerField patch can go in immediately. Regarding PositiveBigIntegerField MySQL seems to be the odd man out by support a bigger value than the other databases. In my opinion we should limit PositiveBigIntegerField to the smaller, standard value, and make people use the numeric field type if they need a larger value (Which is how Oracle works anyway). Basically when introspecting a MySQL database (Which might have these larger values in it), we could consider PositiveBigIntegerField to be numeric and add a comment beside (like other fields that dont match exactly) to say you may translate into a PositiveBigIntegerField if you know what you are doing.. > I'll be happy to implement tests for this patch; however, the only > integer tests I found were in tests/regression_tests/ > serializers_regress. Is it preferred to implement the tests there, or > somewhere else? I wasn't sure how to implement regression tests so I left that bit out :-) -- Peter Nixon http://peternixon.net/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
