Re: Dumb question about serial's upper limit

How about something like:

CREATE DOMAIN unsigned_small AS smallint check (VALUE >= 0)

CREATE DOMAIN unsigned_int AS integer check (VALUE >= 0)

CREATE DOMAIN unsigned_big AS bigint check (VALUE >= 0)

The objection might be that we lose one bit of field width.
But the extra safety is probably worth it if you really need unsigned
and want to avoid ambiguity.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-
> owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Jim C. Nasby
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 11:12 PM
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: CSN; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Dumb question about serial's upper limit
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 10:59:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > CSN <cool_screen_name90001@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > If integer's range is -2147483648 to +2147483647, why
> > > is serial's range only 1 to 2147483647 instead of 1 to
> > > about 4294967294?
> >
> > How are you going to stuff 4294967294 into an integer field, which
as
> > you just stated has an upper limit of 2147483647?
> >
> > If we had an unsigned int type, we could use it for serial and get
> > that result, but we do not.
>
> Out of curiosity... why don't we have unsigned ints? I for one would
> certainly use them for id fields, as well as some other places where I
> knew negative numbers weren't valid.
> --
> Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
> Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
> vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461
>
> ---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>        choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>        match