From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 06:12:27 |
Message-ID: | 20051011061227.GJ23883@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 10:59:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> CSN <cool_screen_name90001(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > If integer's range is -2147483648 to +2147483647, why
> > is serial's range only 1 to 2147483647 instead of 1 to
> > about 4294967294?
>
> How are you going to stuff 4294967294 into an integer field, which as
> you just stated has an upper limit of 2147483647?
>
> If we had an unsigned int type, we could use it for serial and get
> that result, but we do not.
Out of curiosity... why don't we have unsigned ints? I for one would
certainly use them for id fields, as well as some other places where I
knew negative numbers weren't valid.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-11 06:22:23 | Re: Dumb question about serial's upper limit |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-10-11 06:10:29 | Re: PostgreSQL's bug tracker |