[DB-SIG] Type code mappings: expanding the type objects
Federico Di Gregorio
fog at initd.org
Tue Jan 6 07:09:06 EST 2004
Il mar, 2004-01-06 alle 11:51, M.-A. Lemburg ha scritto:
> plus a few more exotic ones that are ODBC cruft. The WCHAR ones
> are Unicode string columns.
> Most of these are SQL92 names for the types, perhaps we should
> stick to them ?!
i think sticking to SQL92 names would be the right thing. here is a
reorganized tree. note that i don't have an SQL reference at hand so
some of the type names can be wrong (just copied marc's).
some open questions:
1/ CHAR is under STRING or under NUMBER?
2/ there are real differences between VARCHAR and LONGVARCHAR?
(i never found a db that has this difference and we don't want
to include types just because they are defined in SQL92 right?)
3/ same for VARBINARY and LONGVARBINARY
4/ are MONEY and DECIMAL the same thing? (both are fixed-point,
5/ in spite of SQL92 i renamed WCHAR_XXX -> WXXX, the other name
is terrible :)
6/ where do we put BOOLEAN for compatibility under NUMBER; but
IMHO it should have a top-level place in its own.
7/ is TEXT just LONGVARCHAR?
Federico Di Gregorio http://people.initd.org/fog
Debian GNU/Linux Developer fog at debian.org
INIT.D Developer fog at initd.org
The number of the beast: vi vi vi. -- Delexa Jones
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Questa parte del messaggio =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E8?= firmata
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/db-sig/attachments/20040106/1e302dda/attachment.bin
More information about the DB-SIG