Unsigned int functions
От | Adriaan Joubert |
---|---|
Тема | Unsigned int functions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3AC389F9.E5F4959B@albourne.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: Unsigned int functions
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, I finally seem to have my unsigned int2/int4 types working correctly, but will wait until 7.1 is out of the door, and test a bit more, before resubmitting. A question though: I've put in functions (as copied from the int2/int4 implementation) that implement operators for differently typed arguments, e.g. uint2*uint4. This saves the type conversions, but adds to the number of functions in the system. When sorting out the constant problems, I realised that (uint2,uint4) combinations will probably be very rarely used, while (int4,uint4) combinations will be much more common, i.e. when there are constants involved. Question is: should I add these functions? Are we looking at too much bloat, i.e. should I replace the (uint2,uint4) combinations with (int4,uint2) and (int4,uint4)? Lots of combinations are possible, but I do not have a good feel for the trade-offs. I only wanted unsigned ints, so that we could develop and test stuff on postgres before moving it onto Tandem. So please let me know what you think the correct trade-offs are and I will implement it and resubmit the patch. Cheers, Adriaan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: