Re: Dumb question about serial's upper limit
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Dumb question about serial's upper limit |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 10488.1129011743@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Dumb question about serial's upper limit ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Dumb question about serial's upper limit
|
Список | pgsql-general |
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com> 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
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: