On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 13:38 -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > On Thursday 02 July 2009 12:40:49 Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 11:19 -0400, Caleb Cushing wrote: > > > A couple of times I've been told "you don't need tinyint, use boolean" > > > which is not true, several projects I've worked on I've needed and > > > integer field that supports number within a small range 0-5 1-10 1-100 > > > or something similar. I end up using smallint but it's range is huge > > > for the actual requirements. > > > > Completely agree. > > > > Blech. More often than not, I find people using all these granular types to > be > nothing more than premature optimization. And if you really do need a single > byte type, you can use "char" (though again I'm not a big fan of that)
I agree that many optimizations are used inappropriately. Another reason for making it an add-on module. I'm aware of "char" and it doesn't do all I would wish. > > I'm most or the way through working on this as an add-on module, rather > > than a new datatype in core. I don't see much reason to include it in > > core: its not an SQL standard datatype, it complicates catalog entries > > and most people don't need or want it. > > > > That's too bad. I'd much rather see someone implement something closer to > Oracle's number type. Please explain what you mean? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
