Re: Is there a reason why Postgres doesn't have Byte or tinyint?

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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?