| From: | Jochem van Dieten <jochemd(at)oli(dot)tudelft(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jean-Christian Imbeault <jc(at)mega-bucks(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 0/1 vs true/false |
| Date: | 2003-07-23 12:21:48 |
| Message-ID: | 3F1E7DDC.2040903@oli.tudelft.nl |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Terence Ng | 2003-07-23 13:03:27 | How do I manage PDF file |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-07-23 10:47:29 | Re: 'last updated' or 'last added' |