From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Tony Caduto" <tony_caduto(at)amsoftwaredesign(dot)com>, "chris smith" <dmagick(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zahir Lalani" <zahir(at)systemz(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: the integer type |
Date: | 2006-04-17 19:50:34 |
Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4011C9CCE@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net]
> Sent: 17 April 2006 20:16
> To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Cc: Dave Page; Tony Caduto; chris smith; Zahir Lalani
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] the integer type
>
> Dave Page wrote:
> > > It's not a error, pgAdmin III simply does not display the word
> > > integer in it's drop down comboboxes, it uses all the internal
> > > representation of types not the SQL standard aliases.
> >
> > Which allows you to use any custom datatype or domain that you like.
>
> That is completely unrelated. If pgadmin (or any tool)
> passed the data types it presumably fetches from pg_type or
> thereabouts through the format_type function it could present
> the user with a full list of actually available data types
> but in their preferred spellings.
It's not at all unrelated - it just means that none of us were aware of
the existance of format_type.
Regards, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tony Caduto | 2006-04-17 20:19:14 | Re: the integer type |
Previous Message | Yudie Pg | 2006-04-17 19:48:09 | tsearch partial word |