On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes:
> > Is there a reason for not supporting unsigned types?
>
> Other than "it's not in any SQL standard", you mean?
>
> Right now I'd resist adding such types because the numeric type
> resolution rules are already a hairy mess. If we ever get those
> straightened out to the point where unadorned constants are reliably
> interpreted "the right way", we could take another look to see if
> unsigned types could be added without plunging everything back into
> chaos. I wouldn't hold my breath for it though.
Actually, I think unsigned ints are mentioned all through the sql 92 docs,
but only as an underlying subtype, never as its own, isn't it?
