Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
...
How much demand for this type, as you've described is there? Are many
Java applications using byte for fields? My guess would have been that
any requests for TINYINT would have been due to existing database
applications.
I think Lance is right: we can see demand for this type in the fact that
a relatively new database like MySQL bothered to add it.
One potential issue is that we are creating a non-standard datatype that
is in conflict with the existing type of the same name by SQL Server and
Sybase. Will this cause more problems for users of Derby as they try to
migrate off those databases? Of course in some ways it's not much better
if we go 0-255, as then it's in conflict with MySQL. Though I would be
interested to know if the new strict flag in MySQL has any effect on
TINYINT.
Right, we need both signed and unsigned bytes to ease all of these
migration paths. That's the appeal of starting out with a signed TINYINT
and adding the UNSIGNED keyword later on.
Cheers,
-Rick
