[DOCS] BIGINT is in apparently SQL:2003
Hello! According to the developers docs http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/datatype- numeric.html#DATATYPE-INT SQL only specifies the integer types integer (or int) and smallint. The type bigint, and the type names int2, int4, and int8 are extensions, which are shared with various other SQL database systems. In the SQL:2003 draft I have (ISO/IEC 9075-2:2003 (E)), BIGINT is listed as well as SMALLINT and INT. 4.1.2 Naming of predefined types SQL defines predefined data types named by the following word>s: CHARACTER, CHARACTER VARYING, CHARACTER LARGE OBJECT, BINARY LARGE OBJECT, NUMERIC, DECIMAL, SMALLINT, INTEGER, BIGINT, FLOAT, REAL, DOUBLE PRECISION, BOOLEAN, DATE, TIME, TIMESTAMP, and INTERVAL. And in "6.1 " 23)SMALLINT, INTEGER, and BIGINT specify the data type exact numeric, with scale of 0 (zero) and binary or decimal precision. The choice of binary versus decimal precision is implementation- defined, but the same radix shall be chosen for all three data types. The precision of SMALLINT shall be less than or equal to the precision of INTEGER, and the precision of BIGINT shall be greater than or equal to the precision of INTEGER. There are references I thought the SQL conformance page could be updated too http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/features-sql- standard.html E011-01 CoreINTEGER and SMALLINT data types but it appears that the BIGINT language doesn't yet appear in E011-01 Core: it reads the same as in the docs. The BIGINT feature is referred to as Feature T071 “BIGINT data type”. There are references that BIGINT should correspond to C's long long (13.6 Data type correspondences), so PostgreSQL conforms on that point as well. I don't know when I'll get around to submitting a doc patch for this, but I wanted to at least put it to the list. Michael Glaesemann grzm seespotcode net ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
[DOCS] Links wrong in docs
Hello, I noticed the other day that if you are viewing the release notes for a particular version that the prev / next links are wrong. E.g., If I am reading 8.1.8 and want to read 8.1.9 I have to hit previous, instead of next. Can we get this fixed? Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [DOCS] Links wrong in docs
On Jul 25, 2007, at 22:43 , Joshua D. Drake wrote: I noticed the other day that if you are viewing the release notes for a particular version that the prev / next links are wrong. E.g., If I am reading 8.1.8 and want to read 8.1.9 I have to hit previous, instead of next. I think it's because the releases are listed newest first, so when you hit next you're not getting the next release, but the next release notes. While perhaps a bit confusing on the individual pages, I still think it's best to have the release notes in reverse chronological order. Michael Glaesemann grzm seespotcode net ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [DOCS] Links wrong in docs
Michael Glaesemann wrote: > > On Jul 25, 2007, at 22:43 , Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> I noticed the other day that if you are viewing the release notes for a >> particular version that the prev / next links are wrong. E.g., If I am >> reading 8.1.8 and want to read 8.1.9 I have to hit previous, instead of >> next. > > I think it's because the releases are listed newest first, so when you hit > next you're not getting the next release, but the next release notes. While > perhaps a bit confusing on the individual pages, I still think it's best to > have the release notes in reverse chronological order. Yeah. It is confusing if you _think_ about it, but if you just use it, it's fine (after all, we've been using it this way for years. I mean even Joshua used to use it and not notice it was backwards). Probably the only thing you could actually do about it is change the text in the link so it said "previous release" (resp. "next release") instead of "next" (resp. "previous"), but I have zero idea what it would take. It's probably a lot more work than it's worth, if it's possible at all. -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
