Subject | Re: [ib-support] System Table Inconsistency in IB6? |
---|---|
Author | Ann W. Harrison |
Post date | 2001-05-28T15:12:51Z |
At 10:54 PM 5/27/2001 +0100, Andrew Garner wrote:
long, etc.)
Apparently they decided they needed a different value for reasons obscure.
Thanks, I'll fix that.
Regards,
Ann
www.ibphoenix.com
We have answers.
>Thanks for the info Ann. However it beings to look as if there *really* isOh, brilliant. QUAD is the VAX equivalent of INT64 (aka long long, Java
>an inconsistancy in the system tables.
>
>In rdb$types the value for an INT64 field (ie QUAD) is 9.
>
>However a field defined as say numeric(18) (ie an INT64 field) has a value
>of 16 in rdb$fields.rdb$field_type.
long, etc.)
Apparently they decided they needed a different value for reasons obscure.
Thanks, I'll fix that.
Regards,
Ann
www.ibphoenix.com
We have answers.