Tom Lane writes: > Given that we now need order-of-thirty possible field types, do you feel > uncomfortable with a single-byte field identifier in the FE/BE protocol? > I'm still leaning that way on the grounds of compactness and programming > simplicity, but I can see where someone might want to argue it won't do > in the long run.
There's a possible solution: SQL99 part 3 defines numerical codes for each of these fields (table 12/section 5.14). The codes are between around 0 and 40. (Don't be confused by the negative code numbers in the table; those are only for use within ODBC.) -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
