Re: Defining a "tinyint" data type - one byte unsigned

Tom Lane wrote:

>Shachar Shemesh <psql(at)shemesh(dot)biz> writes:
>
>
>>Attached is a patch to implement "tinyint".
>>
>>
>
>I don't think we've really solved the numeric-hierarchy casting problems
>well enough to be able to stand adding another member of the hierarchy.
>In particular, what impact is this going to have on implicit typing of
>integer constants?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
The nice thing about a one byte integer is that it's at the very bottom
of the food chain. Since casting upwards is implicit and downwards is
explicit, NOTHING casts implicitly to it. As such I'm hoping (like I
said in my original post - I'm no expert) that this will be a harmless
addition.

If there is anything you can think of that will allow me to verify this
claim, do let me know.

--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Systems Consulting
http://www.lingnu.com/