From: | Mike Christensen <mike(at)kitchenpc(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Is there a reason why Postgres doesn't have Byte or tinyint? |
Date: | 2012-01-08 07:27:59 |
Message-ID: | CABs1bs1sBnTQFMpyPAJ9GY97=CAAADBoPBhOyEHwsBpzhq7=Ow@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
>> According to the manuals, Postgres has smallint (2 byte), integer (4
>> bytes) and bigint (8 bytes).. I use a lot of structures with "bytes"
>> in my code and it's kinda annoying to cast DB output from Int16 to
>> Byte every time, especially since there's no explicit cast in .NET and
>> you have to use System.Convert().
>>
>> Is there a work-around, or do people just cast or use Int16 in their
>> data structures? Just wondering.. I know on modern computers it
>> probably doesn't make any difference anyway..
>
>
> Is this just about programmer convenience or is it about space efficiency in
> the database? BYTEA might help you. Or try declaring a DOMAIN over
> SMALLINT that limits allowed values to the range of a byte. -- Darren Duncan
This is purely programmer convenience.
Basically, I want Npgsql to marshal the value as a .NET Byte type, if
I can find a way to do that I'm happy. Perhaps it's more of a Npgsql
question, though I'm curious as to why Postgres doesn't have an
intrinsic tinyint or byte type.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Darren Duncan | 2012-01-08 07:35:24 | Re: Is there a reason why Postgres doesn't have Byte or tinyint? |
Previous Message | Darren Duncan | 2012-01-08 07:22:56 | Re: Is there a reason why Postgres doesn't have Byte or tinyint? |