I guess my suggestion is: since Oracle takes DECIMAL and NUMERIC to mean NUMBER(38), if SQLAlchemy interprets the generic types DECIMAL or Numeric with no precision to allow for decimal or integer values, we should translate that to 'NUMBER' for Oracle...
Thoughts? On May 6, 12:11 pm, Kent Bower <[email protected]> wrote: > The following has changed since 0.5.8 in 0.6.0. I believe this is > already known or by design from reading docs and another post but want > to point out. > > If you specify a column such as this: > Column("saleprice", Numeric, nullable=False) > you get a 'numeric' type in PostgreSQL, which supports any type of > number, integer or decimal. > > On the other hand, in Oracle (at least 10g), you get 'NUMBER(38)' which > is *only* integer. > > (If I specify a precision, I don't have this problem, but there may be > reasons to not want to specify precision.) > So my questions are: > > Are we sure we are ok with this inconsistency (it makes it more > difficult to write software that behaves identically regardless of > database)? > Is there a replacement type that acts the same regardless of the engine? > > Thanks in advance. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sqlalchemy" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en.
