From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ying Lu <ying_lu(at)cs(dot)concordia(dot)ca>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: About unsigned smallint? |
Date: | 2005-07-07 03:50:24 |
Message-ID: | 2997.1120708224@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 11:30:52PM +0200, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
>> If you ask here, you'll probably get a good explanation why there
>> aren't unsinged types.
> Yeah, they are against the SQL standard apparently;
Not so much "against it" as "not in it" ... which means that if you want
such a feature, you need to actively convince people of its merits.
> and we've got enough
> problems with cross-datatype coercion that there's not much interest in
> making it worse by adding more types.
That was the main reason for rejecting such proposals a few releases ago.
It's possible that our subsequent cleanups in the coercion mechanisms
would make this a feasible idea now. But I haven't investigated
closely, and I don't believe anyone else has either.
The short answer is definitely that it would take more work than anyone
has so far cared to commit.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-07-07 04:18:43 | Re: Seg fault in postgres 7.4.7? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-07 03:36:52 | Re: ERROR: cache lookup failed for relation 438095645 |