Re: 0/1 vs true/false

This makes me wonder, what about 't' and 'f'?... will they disappear in
newer versions of postgreSQL?

On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 09:21, Jochem van Dieten wrote:

> Jean-Christian Imbeault wrote:
> > Just having a small argument with an application developer ...
> >
> > is using 0/1 for boolean types SQL compliant? I am trying to convince
> > him that the proper SQL compliant (and postgresql compliant) syntax is
> > true/false but he won't budge ...
> >
> > The app as currently written no longer works with postgres because they
> > code uses 0/1 instead of the now enforced true/false for boolean types.
> >
> > Can someone point me to an SQL spec and section where this is clearly
> > stated out?
>
> Would this be what you are looking for:
>
> ISO/IEC 9075-2:1999 (E) ©ISO/IEC
> 5.3 <literal>
> (..)
> <boolean literal> ::=
> TRUE
> | FALSE
> | UNKNOWN
>
>
> Additionally about UNKNOWN:
>
> ISO/IEC 9075-2:1999 (E) ©ISO/IEC
> 4.6 Boolean types
> The data type boolean comprises the distinct truth values true
> and false . Unless prohibited by a NOT NULL constraint, the
> boolean data type also supports the unknown truth value as the
> null value. This specification does not make a distinction
> between the null value of the boolean data type and the unknown
> truth value that is the result of an SQL <predicate>, <search
> condition>, or <boolean value expression>; they may be used
> interchangeably to mean exactly the same thing.
>
> HTH,
> Jochem
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>