On Thursday 02 July 2009 12:40:49 Simon Riggs wrote: > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 11:19 -0400, Caleb Cushing wrote: > > A couple of times I've been told "you don't need tinyint, use boolean" > > which is not true, several projects I've worked on I've needed and > > integer field that supports number within a small range 0-5 1-10 1-100 > > or something similar. I end up using smallint but it's range is huge > > for the actual requirements. > > Completely agree. >
Blech. More often than not, I find people using all these granular types to be nothing more than premature optimization. And if you really do need a single byte type, you can use "char" (though again I'm not a big fan of that) > I'm most or the way through working on this as an add-on module, rather > than a new datatype in core. I don't see much reason to include it in > core: its not an SQL standard datatype, it complicates catalog entries > and most people don't need or want it. > That's too bad. I'd much rather see someone implement something closer to Oracle's number type. -- Robert Treat Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net Consulting: http://www.omniti.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
