Unsigned integer types - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Maciej Gajewski
Subject Unsigned integer types
Date
Msg-id CAEcSYXJCXOBcScQTdO5MHejH=J_tn83_tHoxLmeAq7Jrebtbtg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Unsigned integer types
Re: Unsigned integer types
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0