RE: Question on buffer lengths vs SQL reported lengths -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: RE: Question on buffer lengths vs SQL reported lengths
From: Rob Berendt <rob@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 17:51:48 +0000
List-archive: <https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.lists.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@lists.midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

During the transition when they first came out with Date type columns I suspect they did an "interesting" implementation so that the version of RPG available at the time could read it. Even though it only takes four bytes of storage DSPPFM, DSPFFD etc have been tricked into thinking it takes 10.

Rob Berendt

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

RE: Question on buffer lengths vs SQL reported lengths , Matt Olson

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.