16 Sep
2009
16 Sep
'09
11:01 a.m.
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2009/9/16 Alex Balashov
<abalashov(a)evaristesys.com>om>:
Maybe. There was mailing list traffic about it when I first reported
it around 1 April 2009.
I do not think it is a bug, but rather the understandable
unwillingness of the implementors to handle every database-specific
data type that might come their way, like 'timestamp', 'inet', etc.
I do think 'bigint' is an important one to handle because there are
some values Kamailio may need to retrieve from time to time that are
simply larger than 32-bit width. But it's hard to say where the line
should be drawn on special RDBM types, especially since the values
that are represented by user variables, AVPs, hash table, etc. are
ultimately just scalar quantities or strings.
--
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
CREATE TABLE stuff (
id bigint PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL
);
INSERT INTO stuff VALUES (1);
...
sql_query("ca", "SELECT id FROM stuff", "ra");
$dbr(ra=>[0,0]) will be NULL.
sql_...ops!
A bug? For
example a PostgreSQL BIGINT is unintelligible to sqlops, I found out.
What do you
mean exactly?