| From: | Alban Hertroys <haramrae(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Allowing postgresql to accept 0xff syntax for data types that it makes sense for? |
| Date: | 2015-05-22 08:13:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAF-3MvOpiORibdNV+5Z73dFrw3wYSAft+pqHBLRuHd7gaHAkBw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 22 May 2015 at 04:46, Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> wrote:
> I did a litle research and it appears that neither Oracle nor db2 supports
> the 0xff syntax ... so not _quite_ as common as it seemed to me.
> With all that being said, if I were to build a patch, would it be likely
> to be accepted into core?
Wouldn't you also need to support similar syntax for octal numbers for
the patch to be complete? Or are those already supported (ISTR that's
'077' for decimal 63)?
Not that I care at all about octal numbers, but supporting one and not
the other just doesn't seem right.
--
If you can't see the forest for the trees,
Cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alban Hertroys | 2015-05-22 08:40:55 | Re: date with month and year |
| Previous Message | Piotr Gasidło | 2015-05-22 08:12:51 | Re: Strange replication problem - segment restored from archive but still requested from master |