Re: An amusing MySQL weakness--not!
От | Leif Biberg Kristensen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: An amusing MySQL weakness--not! |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 201106271211.21363.leif@solumslekt.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: An amusing MySQL weakness--not! (Vincent Veyron <vv.lists@wanadoo.fr>) |
Ответы |
Re: An amusing MySQL weakness--not!
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Sunday 26. June 2011 16.11.06 Vincent Veyron wrote: > Le dimanche 26 juin 2011 à 00:05 -0700, Darren Duncan a écrit : > > Michael Nolan wrote: > > > > Having real BOOLEAN is just one of the reasons I like Postgres the most. > > Would you mind giving an example of where a boolean field would be a win > over an integer one? > > I'm asking this because I frequently wonder what is best for my use; I > normally query postgres via Perl modules, which don't care about boolean > (the driver converts t/f to 0/1), but I like to tune my fields properly. PHP has its own Boolean values TRUE/FALSE, but reads Postgresql Booleans as 't'/'f'. You always have to rely on kludgy konstructs like if ($pg_bool == 't') then $my_bool = TRUE; elseif ($pg_bool == 'f') then $my_bool = FALSE; else $my_bool = NULL; It's of course much easier to use integer values, but it sucks not to use a bool when you want a variable that can't be anything but TRUE, FALSE or NULL. It obfuscates the code to use a var that evaluates to an integer, but in reality is a Boolean in disguise. regards, Leif
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: