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

Re: single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5
Date: 2009-07-01 16:35:46
Message-ID: 12600.1246466146@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Kevin
> Grittner<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>> Many databases
>> support a TINYINT type as a single-byte value, although I'm not sure
>> there's consistency on whether that's a signed or unsigned value.

> wouldn't any implementation in pg support both?

Introducing unsigned types into PG is a whole different discussion.
The problem there is designing reasonable automatic promotion rules.
Considering that C's rules still confuse people after nigh 40 years,
I'm not enthusiastic about it ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Ron MayerDate: 2009-07-01 16:42:20
Subject: Re: 8.5 development schedule
Previous:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2009-07-01 16:33:15
Subject: Re: Mention CITEXT in the FAQ

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