| From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Bruno Baguette <bruno(dot)baguette(at)netcourrier(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: How can I get a column INT4 to be UNSIGNED ? |
| Date: | 2003-04-11 20:52:07 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0304111451160.3560-100000@css120.ihs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> > Is there a reason for not supporting unsigned types?
>
> Other than "it's not in any SQL standard", you mean?
>
> Right now I'd resist adding such types because the numeric type
> resolution rules are already a hairy mess. If we ever get those
> straightened out to the point where unadorned constants are reliably
> interpreted "the right way", we could take another look to see if
> unsigned types could be added without plunging everything back into
> chaos. I wouldn't hold my breath for it though.
Actually, I think unsigned ints are mentioned all through the sql 92 docs,
but only as an underlying subtype, never as its own, isn't it?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-04-11 20:53:49 | Re: [GENERAL] medical image on postgreSQL? |
| Previous Message | Kyle | 2003-04-11 20:46:49 | Re: How can I get a column INT4 to be UNSIGNED ? |