Re: About unsigned smallint?

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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