Re: Type Categories for User-Defined Types

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Ryan Bradetich" <rbradetich(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Type Categories for User-Defined Types
Date: 2008-07-30 14:50:49
Message-ID: 25300.1217429449@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Ryan Bradetich" <rbradetich(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Yeah, that's the point of the proposal. I think the issue has come up
>> once or twice before, too, else I'd not be so interested in a general
>> solution. (digs in archives ... there was some discussion of this
>> in connection with unsigned integer types, and I seem to recall older
>> threads but can't find any right now.)

> Anything I should be looking into and/or testing for unsigned integer support?

Dunno, I forget what the conclusion was about implicit casting for the
unsigned types in your proposal. Have you experimented with seeing
whether, eg, UNION'ing an unsigned with some signed-integer value
behaves sensibly?

The thread I mention above was a year or so back and was originated by
someone who wanted to duplicate mysql's behavior. Your proposal is
a lot more limited and might not really need to try to put the unsigned
types into the numeric category.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-07-30 14:56:36 Re: printing raw parse tree
Previous Message Jorgen Austvik - Sun Norway 2008-07-30 14:47:41 Re: pg_regress inputdir