On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 07:11:29PM +0000, O'Neill, Owen wrote: > You can get close if you put some check constraints on the columns.
This is key: you can get the benefits of static and dynamic data typing. > I must agree with other posters that the lack of an exposed timestamp > type does feel like something of a gap. Given the rather large number of reasonable ways to represent timestamps, I have to disagree. I'd rather have the freedom to use whichever representation is best for my needs. E.g., if a table contains rows representing Unix files, then I'll probably want to store seconds since the Unix epoch because that will mean fewer conversions, depending on how I use that table anyways. What's needed is a _cheap_ function that can be used in a CHECK constraint on timestamp columns. And, perhaps, a common convention for naming types that correspond to specific timestamp representations. Nico -- _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
