From: | Adriaan Joubert <a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Postgresql <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Unsigned int functions |
Date: | 2001-03-29 19:16:09 |
Message-ID: | 3AC389F9.E5F4959B@albourne.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
I finally seem to have my unsigned int2/int4 types working correctly,
but will wait until 7.1 is out of the door, and test a bit more, before
resubmitting.
A question though:
I've put in functions (as copied from the int2/int4 implementation) that
implement operators for differently typed arguments, e.g. uint2*uint4.
This saves the type conversions, but adds to the number of functions in
the system.
When sorting out the constant problems, I realised that (uint2,uint4)
combinations will probably be very rarely used, while (int4,uint4)
combinations will be much more common, i.e. when there are constants
involved.
Question is: should I add these functions? Are we looking at too much
bloat, i.e. should I replace the (uint2,uint4) combinations with
(int4,uint2) and (int4,uint4)? Lots of combinations are possible, but I
do not have a good feel for the trade-offs.
I only wanted unsigned ints, so that we could develop and test stuff on
postgres before moving it onto Tandem. So please let me know what you
think the correct trade-offs are and I will implement it and resubmit
the patch.
Cheers,
Adriaan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-29 19:51:40 | Re: Unsigned int functions |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-03-29 17:02:32 | Re: Re: [PORTS] pgmonitor and Solaris |