From: | Mike Toews <mwtoews(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Satoshi Nagayasu <satoshi(dot)nagayasu(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: INTEGER range ("-2147483648" is not accepted.) |
Date: | 2010-06-23 14:29:49 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTikILxU1urbGTuEmNSjKHsGVFzPFkCIgXuLo8f34@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On 22 June 2010 18:49, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Is that the right behaviour though? Shouldn't the signed value reach
>> the cast step rather than the absolute value? Or maybe Postgres could
>> implicitly accept -12345::integer to be (-12345)::integer. Is there a
>> blocking reason as to why it must work this way?
>
> Yes. There is no reason to assume that - means the same thing for every
> datatype. In general, :: should (and does) bind tighter than *every*
> operator, to ensure that the appropriately typed operator is applied.
>
Sorry for adding to the non-DOC drift, but why is - assumed to be a
unary operator on an unsigned integer, rather than parsed as part of
an integer? Integers have digits with an optional - or + prefix (not
unary operators). E.g., ([+\-]?[0-9]+)
-Mike
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-23 15:06:07 | Re: INTEGER range ("-2147483648" is not accepted.) |
Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2010-06-23 08:17:58 | Re: INTEGER range ("-2147483648" is not accepted.) |