Re: single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5
Date: 2009-07-01 16:35:46
Message-ID: 12600.1246466146@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Kevin
> Grittner<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>> Many databases
>> support a TINYINT type as a single-byte value, although I'm not sure
>> there's consistency on whether that's a signed or unsigned value.

> wouldn't any implementation in pg support both?

Introducing unsigned types into PG is a whole different discussion.
The problem there is designing reasonable automatic promotion rules.
Considering that C's rules still confuse people after nigh 40 years,
I'm not enthusiastic about it ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron Mayer 2009-07-01 16:42:20 Re: 8.5 development schedule
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2009-07-01 16:33:15 Re: Mention CITEXT in the FAQ