Re: Dumb question about serial's upper limit

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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