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

Re: [RFC] Unsigned integer support.

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Ryan Bradetich" <rbradetich(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Unsigned integer support.
Date: 2008-07-25 16:28:05
Message-ID: 87y73qgc8a.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:

> Hmm, if we do that, how would the system resolve something like this?
>
> select 1000 + 1000

Well we have the same problem with 'foo' || 'bar'. The question I think is
whether the solution there scales to having two different fallback types.

> There would be no clue as to what + operator to pick, since both
> operands are unknown.  This is in fact what happens today with
>
> alvherre=# select '100' + '100';
> ERROR:  operator is not unique: unknown + unknown at character 14
> HINT:  Could not choose a best candidate operator. You might need to add explicit type casts.
> STATEMENT:  select '100' + '100';

Perhaps we could kill two birds with one stone...

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com
  Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jaime CasanovaDate: 2008-07-25 16:30:21
Subject: Re: Column level privileges was:(Re: Extending grant insert on tables to sequences)
Previous:From: Hiroshi SaitoDate: 2008-07-25 16:25:55
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext intoPG core distribution?

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