On 7 November 2012 20:36, <[email protected]> wrote: > Quoting Simon Davies <[email protected]>: > . . . > >> I think this is the documented behaviour: >> http://www.sqlite.org/datatype3.html >> >> tab1.id has integer affinity, and '42' is coerced to integer >> tab2.id has none affinity, and '42' is not coerced > > > Hmm... I see what you mean: > Point 3 under 2.1 states that "if no type is specified then the column has > affinity NONE." > > However, I find a foreign-key-clause counting as "no type specified" is at > least a bit irritating. After all the type could be inferred from the > reference. :-/ > > Also, ironically, the documentation claims that "The dynamic type system of > SQLite is backwards compatible with the more common static type systems of > other database engines...". > > I just checked the example with the Oracle and PostgreSQL instances I have > at hand here: > Oracle does what I think is correct and returns a row in both cases. > PostgreSQL does not allow the "id REFERENCES" construction at all and > requires a data type even for foreign keys. > > So in this case SQLite is incompatible with two major DBMSes. :-)
Which from what you have said, are also incompatible with each other! > > Anyway, thanks for your help, Simon! > > kind regards, > > Christian > Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list [email protected] http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
