Unsigned integer types

From: Maciej Gajewski <maciej(dot)gajewski0(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Unsigned integer types
Date: 2013-05-27 13:15:42
Message-ID: CAEcSYXJCXOBcScQTdO5MHejH=J_tn83_tHoxLmeAq7Jrebtbtg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi all

I know this topic was discussed before, but there doesn't seem to be
any conclusion.

The lack of unsigned integer types is one of the biggest sources of
grief in my daily work with pgsql.

Before I go and start hacking, I'd like to discuss few points:

1. Is there a strong objection against merging this kind of patch?

I can provide numerous reasons why using bigger int or numeric type
just doesn't cut.

2. How/if should the behaviour of numeric literals change?

The minimalistic solution is: it shouldn't, literals should be assumed
signed by default. More complex solution could involve using C-style
suffix ('123456u').

3. How/if should comparing singed and unsigned types work?

IMO they shouldn't be allowed and explicit cast should be required.

Thanks in advance!

Maciek

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2013-05-27 13:17:50 Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2013-05-27 13:15:03 Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture