"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Out of curiosity... why don't we have unsigned ints? Quick, is 42 an int or an unsigned int? I think it'd create a slew of new ambiguous cases in the numeric-datatype hierarchy, for what is really pretty darn small gain. We're already just barely getting by the problem that 42 might be intended as an int2 or int8 constant --- and at least those three datatypes have compatible comparison semantics, so that there aren't any fundamental semantic problems created if you decide that a constant is one or the other. Adding unsigned types to the mix seems to me to be likely to cause some serious issues. But feel free to give it a try, if you think it's worth a nontrivial amount of work. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
