| From: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Maciej Gajewski *EXTERN*" <maciej(dot)gajewski0(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unsigned integer types |
| Date: | 2013-05-27 13:49:06 |
| Message-ID: | A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B05821E97@ntex2010a.host.magwien.gv.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Maciej Gajewski wrote:
> I know this topic was discussed before, but there doesn't seem to be
> any conclusion.
>
> The lack of unsigned integer types is one of the biggest sources of
> grief in my daily work with pgsql.
>
> Before I go and start hacking, I'd like to discuss few points:
>
> 1. Is there a strong objection against merging this kind of patch?
>
> I can provide numerous reasons why using bigger int or numeric type
> just doesn't cut.
It would be interesting to know these reasons.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-05-27 14:16:12 | Re: Unsigned integer types |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-05-27 13:43:42 | Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture |