"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Is there any serious impediment to adding unsigned types to PostgreSQL?
Quick, what's the datatype of 12345? And why?
My guess is that transparent support for such a thing would require some
tricky and fragile compromises in the numeric hierarchy's promotion
rules. The handling of smallint is already pretty unsatisfactory
because "12345" is considered int not smallint; adding three or four
unsigned types would make that problem many times worse.
> I don't think these would even have to be in core, if that's a
> concern.
Sure, if you don't need it to work reasonably nicely --- although the
promotion rules are now embedded in pg_cast and hence modifiable, the
initial determination of a datatype for a numeric literal is still
hard-wired in the grammar.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
