Re: [pgsql-advocacy] MySQL to PostgreSQL, was ENUM type
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] MySQL to PostgreSQL, was ENUM type |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 18607.1122667068@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] MySQL to PostgreSQL, was ENUM type ("Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] MySQL to PostgreSQL, was ENUM type
|
Список | pgsql-general |
"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org> 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
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: