From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
Cc: | CSN <cool_screen_name90001(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Dumb question about serial's upper limit |
Date: | 2005-10-11 06:22:23 |
Message-ID: | 10488.1129011743@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> Out of curiosity... why don't we have unsigned ints?
Quick, is 42 an int or an unsigned int?
I think it'd create a slew of new ambiguous cases in the
numeric-datatype hierarchy, for what is really pretty darn small gain.
We're already just barely getting by the problem that 42 might be
intended as an int2 or int8 constant --- and at least those three
datatypes have compatible comparison semantics, so that there aren't any
fundamental semantic problems created if you decide that a constant is
one or the other. Adding unsigned types to the mix seems to me to be
likely to cause some serious issues.
But feel free to give it a try, if you think it's worth a nontrivial
amount of work.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tino Wildenhain | 2005-10-11 06:23:45 | Re: PostgreSQL's bug tracker |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-10-11 06:12:27 | Re: Dumb question about serial's upper limit |