From: | Maciej Gajewski <maciej(dot)gajewski0(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Unsigned integer types |
Date: | 2013-05-27 13:15:42 |
Message-ID: | CAEcSYXJCXOBcScQTdO5MHejH=J_tn83_tHoxLmeAq7Jrebtbtg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi all
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.
2. How/if should the behaviour of numeric literals change?
The minimalistic solution is: it shouldn't, literals should be assumed
signed by default. More complex solution could involve using C-style
suffix ('123456u').
3. How/if should comparing singed and unsigned types work?
IMO they shouldn't be allowed and explicit cast should be required.
Thanks in advance!
Maciek
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-05-27 13:17:50 | Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-05-27 13:15:03 | Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture |