Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

AW: Unsigned int functions

From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
To: "'Adriaan Joubert'" <a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com>
Cc: Postgresql <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: AW: Unsigned int functions
Date: 2001-03-30 07:03:55
Message-ID: 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368260@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > A larger question is whether unsigned types really add much to the
> > system vs. the bloat.  We already have unsigned int4 as oid.  Also,
> > unsigned doubles the space of the type, but if a value doesn't fit in
> > 32k, what are the odds it will fit in 64k.  I am not sure unsigned
> > optimzations for space really are significant in SQL.

> If general opinion is that unsigned types should not be part of
> postgres, I'll have to look at turning them into a contrib type. Please
> let me know.

Imho this would be better. These types are not generally available (e.g. not in Oracle).
One other approach to the porting issue would probably simply involve moving 
from int2 to integer with an appropriate check constraint 
[int xx check (xx between 0 and 65536)], and from int4 to decimal(9).

Andreas

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: MaurizioDate: 2001-03-30 09:13:08
Subject: testing last sanpshot in QNX platform
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2001-03-30 06:22:21
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Error in the date field (with NULL value...).Thanks!

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group