Hi, > I was a little bit sceptical about the DBI fixes and therefore it take a > little bit more time than usual to check the patch. I found some problems: > > Oracle: it support number(49) but only with a precision of 38 numbers > IBM: it support numeric(49) but only with a precision of 31 numbers > > Martin, I think we can accept this because today we support only 8 byte > integers with DB2 and Oracle. So 31 or 38 digits are better than 8 byte > int - even if the solution is not perfect. > > I'm commiting on CVS HEAD including the first batch function for CVS HEAD.
I also wondered about the NUMBER() data type (and used it in another application for serial number storage as well). I think NUMBER(31) is perfectly OK for storing cert serials: log_16 10^31 = 25.74 So we can store 25 hexadecimal digit serial numbers in this data type, more than enough for the RFC requirements, if I am not mistaken. Martin ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id396&op=click _______________________________________________ OpenCA-Devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openca-devel
