>That could be avoided perhaps by measures like not having any implicit casts between the int and uint hierarchies, but
thenthere'd be a corresponding loss of usability for the uint types.
In my opinion no explicit cast between unsigned and signed integer is
very desirable behavior.
>Quick, is "42 + 1" an int32 or uint32 operation?
Or is it int64 or uint64, when should it overflow? Or is it a floating
point operation? Or are there mismatched numeric types, because one is
a float and the other is an integer? In this circumstance, most likely
42 would be a variable with a known type so you could deduce the
intended type of 1 which presumably is a constant.
This gets into questions around the SQL type system I am unfamiliar with.
> ambiguous-operator errors in many cases that were fine before.
Adopt a convention that integers are signed unless explicitly made unsigned?
To be explicit, you could write 42u64 + 1u64 or 42u32 + 1u32...
On Sat, Dec 7, 2024 at 8:24 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Jack Bay <jack.victor.bay@gmail.com> writes:
> > Would it be possible to add support for unsigned 64-bit and unsigned
> > 32-bit integers to postgresql?
>
> This has been discussed before, and we've concluded that the impact
> on the numeric promotion hierarchy (that is, implicit-cast rules
> among the integer types) would probably be catastrophic, leading
> to problems like ambiguous-operator errors in many cases that were
> fine before. Quick, is "42 + 1" an int32 or uint32 operation?
>
> That could be avoided perhaps by measures like not having any
> implicit casts between the int and uint hierarchies, but then
> there'd be a corresponding loss of usability for the uint types.
>
> Plus, the sheer magnitude of effort needed to build out a reasonable
> set of support (functions, operators, opclasses) for uint types seems
> daunting.
>
> On the flip side, it'd be great to be able to use uint32 instead
> of bigint for the SQL representation of types like BlockNumber.
> But we couldn't roll in such a change transparently unless we make
> int-vs-uint casting fairly transparent, which seems problematic
> as per above.
>
> Perhaps a sufficiently determined and creative person could put
> together a patch that'd be accepted, but it'd be a lot of work
> for uncertain reward. I'm not aware that anyone is working on
> such a thing at present.
>
> regards, tom lane
