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

Re: [RFC] Unsigned integer support.

From: Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>
To: Ryan Bradetich <rbradetich(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Unsigned integer support.
Date: 2008-07-26 16:06:21
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi Ryan,

I agree, I have had applications use uint types to avoid using
a larger data type. I have actually had to patch an application
developed for MySQL uint8 to signed int8 on PostgreSQL. In that
case, the only operations that were performed where assignment
and lookup. If we need to use the numeric type for calculations,
that would be okay as long as the data is actually stored as
8-bytes, not numeric. It would certainly increase the ease of
moving an application from  MySQL to PostgreSQL.


On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 08:50:02PM -0700, Ryan Bradetich wrote:
> Hello Dann,
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> wrote:
> > At the cost of one bit of storage, you have compatible types using
> Thanks for your review and feedback!  Unfortunately, I do need the full range
> of the unsigned types for the project I am looking at.  The reason I started
> working on these types is because it seemed wasteful to use the next size
> larger signed integer for the storage type of the unsigned integer.
> Thanks for the suggestion!
> - Ryan
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-07-26 16:20:04
Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance
Previous:From: Andrew GierthDate: 2008-07-26 15:19:31
Subject: Executor question

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group