Thank you for comprehensive answer.
You are right, it is better to implement what users really need in
their work, but I believe that people who writing SQL Standard want to
give it pragmatic and usable.
Regards,
Grzegorz Szpetkowski
2011/5/3 Susanne Ebrecht :
> On 02.05.2011 12:46, Grzegorz Szp
On 02.05.2011 12:46, Grzegorz Szpetkowski wrote:
I know that BIT and BIT VARYING types were deleted from SQL:2003 and
there are "old new" BINARY, BINARY VARYING in SQL:2008. I have two
question:
1) Are these types technically the same (I mean implementation things) ?
2) Is PostgreSQL aim to supp
I know that BIT and BIT VARYING types were deleted from SQL:2003 and
there are "old new" BINARY, BINARY VARYING in SQL:2008. I have two
question:
1) Are these types technically the same (I mean implementation things) ?
2) Is PostgreSQL aim to support BINARY, BINARY VARYING in 9.1 and
leave BIT and
