Re: How can I get a column INT4 to be UNSIGNED ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
Cc: Bruno Baguette <bruno(dot)baguette(at)netcourrier(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: How can I get a column INT4 to be UNSIGNED ?
Date: 2003-04-11 20:24:48
Message-ID: 13417.1050092688@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> Is there a reason for not supporting unsigned types?

Other than "it's not in any SQL standard", you mean?

Right now I'd resist adding such types because the numeric type
resolution rules are already a hairy mess. If we ever get those
straightened out to the point where unadorned constants are reliably
interpreted "the right way", we could take another look to see if
unsigned types could be added without plunging everything back into
chaos. I wouldn't hold my breath for it though.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-04-11 20:31:52 Re: pg_dump: NOTICE: ShmemAlloc: out of memory
Previous Message Ed L. 2003-04-11 20:18:41 Re: Batch replication ordering (was Re: [GENERAL] 32/64-bit