On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:17:30PM -0700, Dean Arnold wrote: > > I found an ISO SQL spec (for SQL-99 anyway... > has DBI declared any conformance level at this point ?)
No. Though basically it tried to track the latest standards. > And my interpretations of type string formats seem pretty > conformant. However, the "exotics", e.g. ROW, GUID, UDT, > etc. will likely have only generic defaults for obvious reasons > (questions? just read the spec), but INTERVAL defaults > will behave pretty much as I described. > > Quick poll: how many drivers supply a PRECISION value for > INTEGER, REAL, FLOAT, DOUBLE PRECISION ? The std. > indicates they can have precision... How many drivers provide _accurate_ PRECISION for all those types? And how many databases accept having a PRECISION specified for those types? And for FLOAT types is PRECISION in the same units as the FLOAT(n) parameter? (For float types some databases specify PRECISION in decimal digits and some in binary digits, and some change between versions :) Originally you said "either for display purposes, or to generate additional queries". Display purposes is fine, you can do anything 'reasonable' but "generate additional queries" is a far more demanding requirement. It's important to specify *exactly* what the goal is. And what about modifiers like UNSIGNED, or even AUTO_UNIQUE_VALUE. Tim.
