On 04/06/2016 10:33 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 4/4/16, Mike Bayer wrote:
>> The "type" column in PRAGMA table_info() is now a blank string when the
>> target object is a view in 3.12.0. In 3.11.0 and prior versions, the
>> typing information is returned,
>>
>
> I think the problem is fixed by
Hello,
On 2016-04-06 16:33, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 4/4/16, Mike Bayer wrote:
>> The "type" column in PRAGMA table_info() is now a blank string when the
>> target object is a view in 3.12.0. In 3.11.0 and prior versions, the
>> typing information is returned,
> I think the problem is fixed by
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 06:13:01 +
Hick Gunter wrote:
> You are hopefully aware of the fact that SQLite associates type with
> the actual values and not the containers(columns) used to hold these
> values? This means that a data object of any type may be
> held/returned in a column, irrespective
On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 13:19:50 -0400
Richard Hipp wrote:
> CREATE TABLE t2(w SHORT INT, x DECIMAL, y BIGINT, z REAL);
> CREATE VIEW v3 AS SELECT w+x+y+z FROM t2;
>
> What should "PRAGMA table_info('v3')" report as the column type?
It should report it as for a table, with values consistent
+1 for INFORMATION SCHEMA !
> Wed Apr 06 2016 04:18:10 PM CEST from "Michael Schlenker"
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] regression in 3.12.0 vs.
>3.11.0,column type information in PRAGMA missing
>
>
> btw. would be nice to have an INFORMATION SCHEMA style view for thi
Hi,
Am 06.04.2016 um 15:00 schrieb Cezary H. Noweta:
> Hello,
>
> On 2016-04-06 09:43, Darren Duncan wrote:
>> On 2016-04-05 10:19 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
>>> It seems to me that the most consistent answer is that the "type" of
>>> columns in a VIEW should always be an empty string.
>
>>
Hello,
On 2016-04-06 09:43, Darren Duncan wrote:
> On 2016-04-05 10:19 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>> It seems to me that the most consistent answer is that the "type" of
>> columns in a VIEW should always be an empty string.
> That's only consistent if you do the same thing with base tables.
On 2016-04-06 6:00 AM, Cezary H. Noweta wrote:
> On 2016-04-06 09:43, Darren Duncan wrote:
>> On 2016-04-05 10:19 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
>>> It seems to me that the most consistent answer is that the "type" of
>>> columns in a VIEW should always be an empty string.
>
>> That's only consistent
On 4/4/16, Mike Bayer wrote:
> The "type" column in PRAGMA table_info() is now a blank string when the
> target object is a view in 3.12.0. In 3.11.0 and prior versions, the
> typing information is returned,
>
I think the problem is fixed by this checkin:
es at mailinglists.sqlite.org] Im Auftrag von Mike
> Bayer
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 05. April 2016 21:46
> An: sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org
> Betreff: Re: [sqlite] regression in 3.12.0 vs. 3.11.0, column type
> information in PRAGMA missing
>
>
>
> On 04/05/2016 0
at mailinglists.sqlite.org
Betreff: Re: [sqlite] regression in 3.12.0 vs. 3.11.0, column type information
in PRAGMA missing
On 04/05/2016 01:19 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 4/4/16, Mike Bayer wrote:
>> The "type" column in PRAGMA table_info() is now a blank string when
>> th
On 2016-04-05 10:19 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> This could easily be considered a bug fix rather than a regression.
> Please explain why you think it is important to know the "type" of a
> column in a view?
One should be able to treat a view the same as a base table, not even having to
know
Hello,
On 2016-04-05 19:19, Richard Hipp wrote:
> Please explain why you think it is important to know the "type" of a
> column in a view?
For the same reason as it is important in case of a table. Both could be
consistent.
> There are further inconsistencies here. Example:
>
> CREATE
If this change also applies to?sqlite3_table_column_metadata()'s behavior with
views, then I would consider it a real negative. ?Currently I can get my
declaration types using that call, which are hints on how to interpret the
values in the databases I create, from simple views which is
Hello,
On 2016-04-05 17:05, Mike Bayer wrote:
> OK...so *that* is a change. Is *that* by design, and if so should that
> be described here http://sqlite.org/releaselog/3_12_0.html ?
I hope that is by an accident. While info about ``notnull'' and
``defaultvalue'' (which is not carried in 3.11.x
Hello,
On 2016-04-04 22:14, Mike Bayer wrote:
> if it is by design that views no longer carry typing information, this
> is a major behavioral change and no mention of it occurs in the release
> notes for 3.12.0, so at the very least this change should be documented
> if expected.
This is not
On 04/05/2016 01:19 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 4/4/16, Mike Bayer wrote:
>> The "type" column in PRAGMA table_info() is now a blank string when the
>> target object is a view in 3.12.0. In 3.11.0 and prior versions, the
>> typing information is returned,
>>
>
> This could easily be considered
On 4/4/16, Mike Bayer wrote:
> The "type" column in PRAGMA table_info() is now a blank string when the
> target object is a view in 3.12.0. In 3.11.0 and prior versions, the
> typing information is returned,
>
This could easily be considered a bug fix rather than a regression.
Please explain why
On 04/05/2016 10:43 AM, Cezary H. Noweta wrote:
>
> IMHO, this described by you behavior can be considered as a bug in
> ``PRAGMA table_info'', which takes column's affinity from ``CREATE
> TABLE'' command only as for now.
OK...so *that* is a change. Is *that* by design, and if so should that
The "type" column in PRAGMA table_info() is now a blank string when the
target object is a view in 3.12.0. In 3.11.0 and prior versions, the
typing information is returned,
Version 3.11.0:
SQLite version 3.11.0 2016-02-15 17:29:24
Enter ".help" for usage hints.
Connected to a transient
20 matches
Mail list logo
