Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 11:30:52PM +0200, Dawid Kuroczko wrote: >> If you ask here, you'll probably get a good explanation why there >> aren't unsinged types. > Yeah, they are against the SQL standard apparently; Not so much "against it" as "not in it" ... which means that if you want such a feature, you need to actively convince people of its merits. > and we've got enough > problems with cross-datatype coercion that there's not much interest in > making it worse by adding more types. That was the main reason for rejecting such proposals a few releases ago. It's possible that our subsequent cleanups in the coercion mechanisms would make this a feasible idea now. But I haven't investigated closely, and I don't believe anyone else has either. The short answer is definitely that it would take more work than anyone has so far cared to commit. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
