Re: single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5
Date
Msg-id 12600.1246466146@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5  (Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Kevin
> Grittner<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
>> Many databases
>> support a TINYINT type as a single-byte value, although I'm not sure
>> there's consistency on whether that's a signed or unsigned value.

> wouldn't any implementation in pg support both?

Introducing unsigned types into PG is a whole different discussion.
The problem there is designing reasonable automatic promotion rules.
Considering that C's rules still confuse people after nigh 40 years,
I'm not enthusiastic about it ...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David E. Wheeler"
Date:
Subject: Re: Mention CITEXT in the FAQ
Next
From: Ron Mayer
Date:
Subject: Re: 8.5 development schedule