On Oct 4, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Markus Schaber wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
It's not only about documenting the pure existence of the aliases
(which
was already documented in the table on the datatype TOC page),
it's also
about telling the user which of the names are the ones to avoid,
and the
reasons to do so.
*blink* Why do any need to be avoided? What you use is a matter of
taste, and your organisation's coding standards. From a purely
technical
POV I don't see any reason to avoid using either the canonical type
names or the various aliases.
At least compatibility with the SQL standard, as well as with other
Databases might be a reason.
It would be nice to denote types/aliases that are and aren't ANSI. A
number are marked in the docs, but it would be good to add the info
to that summary table.
--
Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
--
Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
