On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 02:22:23AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "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. Couldn't the same logic of starting with the most restrictive case and working up work here as well? -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
