Re: Dumb question about serial's upper limit - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Jim C. Nasby
Subject Re: Dumb question about serial's upper limit
Date
Msg-id 20051011061227.GJ23883@pervasive.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Dumb question about serial's upper limit  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Dumb question about serial's upper limit  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Dumb question about serial's upper limit  (Michael Glaesemann <grzm@myrealbox.com>)
List pgsql-general
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 10:59:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> CSN <cool_screen_name90001@yahoo.com> writes:
> > If integer's range is -2147483648 to +2147483647, why
> > is serial's range only 1 to 2147483647 instead of 1 to
> > about 4294967294?
>
> How are you going to stuff 4294967294 into an integer field, which as
> you just stated has an upper limit of 2147483647?
>
> If we had an unsigned int type, we could use it for serial and get
> that result, but we do not.

Out of curiosity... why don't we have unsigned ints? I for one would
certainly use them for id fields, as well as some other places where I
knew negative numbers weren't valid.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL's bug tracker
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Dumb question about serial's upper limit