On 8 Sep., 11:04, "Laurenz Albe" <inv... (AT) spam (DOT) to.invalid> wrote:
Hmmm I don't really understand this sentence. What do you mean by it?
Because the SQL standard doesn't include a one-byte, it doesn't forbid
it? :-S

Karsten

Karsten Wutzke, 08.09.2009 11:45:
There is a pretty cool new feature that makes it into a lot of products nowadays.
It's called "The Manual" and most of the time it explains how a piece of software works.

But - what's even better - most of the times this "manual" thing is available online, so one doesn't need to install the corresponding product. Pretty nifty if you ask me.

Postgres follows this trend and suprsingly enough your question is answered directly in the documentation of the boolean datatype:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/curre...e-boolean.html


Regards
Thomas

On 8 Sep., 12:05, Thomas Kellerer <OTPXDAJCS... (AT) spammotel (DOT) com> wrote:
You're right. I'm a little tired of reading documentation. :-
( Everything answered. Though the facts are a little strange. No one-
byte integral type, but booleans as one-byte in storage...

Thanks
Karsten

Karsten Wutzke wrote:
Sorry, I should have been more clear:

Possibility 1:
The SQL Standard says: "There should be a one-byte integer".

Possibility 2:
The SQL Standard says: "There may not ba a one-byte integer."

Possibility 3:
The SQL Standard says nothing of the above.

You complained that possibility 1 is not the case.

I misunderstood and answered that I don't think
that possibility 2 is the case.

What I believe is that possibility 3 is true, which means
that a DMBS is free to implement a one-byte integer or not.

Seems like most chose not to do that.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

Karsten Wutzke wrote:
There is another one-byte data type: "char".

Why is that strange? Probably nobody saw a need for
a one-byte integer data type.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe