Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-695) Re-enable the TINYINT datatype

[Lance J. Andersen]

Yeah, that's the same sentence I saw. It's a bit oddly worded. The "8-bit integer value" makes it sound like a byte. But "value between 0 and 255 that may be signed or unsigned" could mean a "value between -256 and 255", that is, a 9-bit quantity. I'm putting my faith in the 8-bit part. So it seems there would be two choices: -128 to 127 : + matches JDBC 3.0 mapping to a byte (tables B.1/B.2) - does not match SQL Server, Sybase 0 to 255 : + matches SQL Server, Sybase - does not match JDBC 3.0 mapping to a byte Hmmmm, that's kind of an awkward place to be in. It seems you want to add this non-standard SQL type to match other databases, but by matching the other databases you break the JDBC spec. :-) I do not see how this is going to break anything.  The JDBC spec indicates should, not  "must". As the other doc points out you could use either a short or a byte based on your needs. setbyte() will work if the value is in range for the database which means it has to be non-negative for TINYINT in the case of Sybase. setShort() will also work for a TINYINT as long as the value is in range. So i guess i am not sure of your concern dan.  This datatype has worked fine for drivers which have supported Sybase and MS SQL server for years. Assuming there is agreement to add TINYINT, i would add it to be compatible with Sybase and MS SQL Server. MySQL seems to claim both ranges, but I didn't look to see how you specifiy signed vs. unsigned. Given MySQL's type handling in other areas I'm not sure they a a good "reference" implementation. Rick, you also, I think, said in one e-mail that Postgres supports TINYINT, I've only been able to find information that Postgres does not support TINYINT, do you have a link? Dan.